Bingo
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Question from an outsider
- Thread starter Keith Martin
- Start date
Greatest sin of all may be turning one's back on God.
Just for clarity, this post was hyperbole.Further thought:
What about rebellious wives?
If the law applies to both genders (or all 51 genders), why aren’t rebellious wives addressed similarly?
Unless I am missing something, her spirit is her husband’s to contend with, not extinguish.
Edit: If her rebelliousness extended to actual, or even accused, adultery, there were courses of action that didn’t remain within the family.
What I was trying to highlight is that rebellious sons were subject to stoning, but not rebellious wives.
If wives are not to be subjected to that level of punishment, I can see no reason that daughters would be.
Unlike today, it was highly unusual for a woman to lead a rebellion. Although Mose’s sister got her butt kicked pretty good.
I take it on general interpretive principle that a text that says 'son' is not written about daughters. It is only our modern equality culture that views things otherwise.
But they were, in the case of adultery and whoring respectively. At least in the OT. So the same level of punishment, but different situations because they are different.
But if we never go that far, can we really claim we follow that law?
Doesn't sound like a limit to me.
Not a TK. My own perspective here is that I used to think all of these punishments were too extreme. But modern society is teaching me the wisdom of them.
But they were, in the case of adultery and whoring respectively. At least in the OT. So the same level of punishment, but different situations because they are different.
But if we never go that far, can we really claim we follow that law?
Doesn't sound like a limit to me.
Not a TK. My own perspective here is that I used to think all of these punishments were too extreme. But modern society is teaching me the wisdom of them.
A wife that commits adultery or goes a-whoring would be presumably rebellious, but I was only referencing a rebellious wife who had not taken her rebellion to that level. I was comparing to a son who is rebellious, but not committing adultery.
In the circles I frequent, we believe that punishments may only be administered by government, not by individuals (vigilantes). So the sin of not carrying out capital punishments, we ascribe to our governments, and we as individuals are innocent of that neglect.
Hopefully we can raise them in a way that stoning isn’t required, and thus avoid the issue altogether, but unless the symbols of your religion include the crescent moon, practicing capital punishment on your children is extremely problematic.
@Keith Martin great questions, sorry i'm just noticing this thread.
I agree that all but one or two commands are directly given to the men and men are supposed to implement and enforce in their homes... think 1 Cor. 11:3 and Eph 5:22-33. Much Scripture, both OT and NT, especially Torah, to support thus.
I agree that most penalties are maximums, where the one acting as judge can extend mercy for repentance, etc.
A rebellious son gets to stoning only by repeated and recalcitrant behavior. By tradition in Judaism, capital punishments are meted by the elders or sages (technically, can go to Sanhedrin ). This certainly prevents a father from acting out in a fit of rage or irrationally. Likely, this is the basis for @Philip 's position. As @rockfox intimates, stiff penalties do reduce crimes.
The severest penalties are consistently for rebellion against authority. Man against God, woman against man, son against father... selah.
I agree that all but one or two commands are directly given to the men and men are supposed to implement and enforce in their homes... think 1 Cor. 11:3 and Eph 5:22-33. Much Scripture, both OT and NT, especially Torah, to support thus.
I agree that most penalties are maximums, where the one acting as judge can extend mercy for repentance, etc.
A rebellious son gets to stoning only by repeated and recalcitrant behavior. By tradition in Judaism, capital punishments are meted by the elders or sages (technically, can go to Sanhedrin ). This certainly prevents a father from acting out in a fit of rage or irrationally. Likely, this is the basis for @Philip 's position. As @rockfox intimates, stiff penalties do reduce crimes.
The severest penalties are consistently for rebellion against authority. Man against God, woman against man, son against father... selah.
Thank you so much for that, @PeteR. I'm blessed by your interpretation that the penalties are maximums. That addresses everything from male homosexuality to rebellion.
What you said makes a lot of sense. Is there Biblical support for saying that these are "maximum punishments" rather than mandatory ones?
One example that comes to my mind is that of Joseph deciding to divorce rather than stone his betrothed wife Mary when he found out that she was pregnant prior to their union. In this passage, Joseph is described as a righteous man in reference to this decision.
Amen! The fact that anyone is delivered from the eternal judgement they are due for sin is proof of that, and something I am profoundly grateful for.
The claim for justice wasn't just withdrawn. It was paid in full by the Savior on the cross. Glory be to God!
If this is taking your post to places you weren't intending, please advise, and I'll repost it elsewhere.
When speaking of homosexual, are you speaking of someone who has thoughts and attractions, and maybe even interactions of a sexual nature with other males, or someone who actually engages in repeated entries into the forbidden zone?
*Note: not a Torah keeper, but have been looking at seriously amending my diet since doing in depth family study in Torah during our family devotion time.
When speaking of homosexual, are you speaking of someone who has thoughts and attractions, and maybe even interactions of a sexual nature with other males, or someone who actually engages in repeated entries into the forbidden zone?
*Note: not a Torah keeper, but have been looking at seriously amending my diet since doing in depth family study in Torah during our family devotion time.
Torah does not condemn the thoughts, only the actions. I would consider someone who has homosexual tendencies to be "tempted" towards homosexuality. If they do not act as a homosexual, they have resisted the temptation, and are not in sin.
To add nuance to that though, we should bear in mind that Jesus said that if you look at a woman in lust you have committed adultery with her - God does really care about the intent rather than the action. It is the intent that is the sin, the action just evidences that there was that intent. Someone who plans to murder someone is already in sin, but only God knows about it - if they actually go on to murder them then we all know they are a sinner, and God still knows they're a sinner.
So if someone intentionally fantasises about homosexual activity, or wants or plans to do that, then they are already in sin. If they decide they are a homosexual and internalise this as their own identify, they are in sin. If they actually do it then their sin is confirmed.
If they just have a temptation towards it and do not internalise that as their own desire or identity, then they are not sinning at all.
But only if they actually did the action would others know they were a sinner. If it's just in their brain there's no evidence of it to convict them on. So the physical penalty still only applies if they actually do the deed. If they just intend to do it, then the fact that the physical penalty exists convicts them of their sin, but only in their hearts, and only God can actually apply any penalty for it if justified. I suppose there would be a grey area for someone who is flamboyant enough that everyone else knows of them as a homosexual but just happens to have never actually done it - but I suspect this case is rare enough as to be entirely hypothetical and irrelevant.
To add nuance to that though, we should bear in mind that Jesus said that if you look at a woman in lust you have committed adultery with her - God does really care about the intent rather than the action. It is the intent that is the sin, the action just evidences that there was that intent. Someone who plans to murder someone is already in sin, but only God knows about it - if they actually go on to murder them then we all know they are a sinner, and God still knows they're a sinner.
So if someone intentionally fantasises about homosexual activity, or wants or plans to do that, then they are already in sin. If they decide they are a homosexual and internalise this as their own identify, they are in sin. If they actually do it then their sin is confirmed.
If they just have a temptation towards it and do not internalise that as their own desire or identity, then they are not sinning at all.
But only if they actually did the action would others know they were a sinner. If it's just in their brain there's no evidence of it to convict them on. So the physical penalty still only applies if they actually do the deed. If they just intend to do it, then the fact that the physical penalty exists convicts them of their sin, but only in their hearts, and only God can actually apply any penalty for it if justified. I suppose there would be a grey area for someone who is flamboyant enough that everyone else knows of them as a homosexual but just happens to have never actually done it - but I suspect this case is rare enough as to be entirely hypothetical and irrelevant.
Great question, @Mojo, and, no, you needn't post this elsewhere (although it might work at rockfoxautozone.com).
I used the word 'behavior' in the original post, because I was specifically referring to Lev. 20:13, which doesn't speak to thoughts or desires but to actual male homosexual behavior (I've posted elsewhere that my fairly extensive but still decidedly incomplete research on the etymology of Lev. 20:13 indicates to me that it was purposefully mistranslated from a Hebrew phrase that was spoken in a responsive voice -- possibly in response to a what's-good-for-the-goose question about fairness asked of Moses when he returned from Mt. Sinai -- meaning instead that a man may not sexually share his wife with another man, but for the purposes of this particular thread I'm assuming the meaning conveyed by perhaps the only instance of universal unanimity in translation in Scripture: a man shall not lie with another man as one would with a woman, which is generally assumed to mean that a man shall not have penetrative sexual intercourse with another man). With all due respect to the titan authority on Scripture, former president Jimmy Earl, The Word generally addresses prohibitions against acting on impulses. YHWH knows what is in our hearts, but He generally restricts us to being punished for our deeds.
The main point of the thread was to address rebellion of children, not so much homosexual behavior (Lev. 20:13 was used to compare how differently we now enforce two prohibitions), but right behind rebellion this thread clearly ended up addressing the grace of YHWH we're to emulate.
Now that you've brought it up, though, and given that this thread fizzled out almost 4 weeks ago, I have a another thought inspired by your question: (a) Is there a sin distinction between male:male "entries into the forbidden zone" and "interactions of a sexual nature with other males?" I do get that other behaviors aside from anal penetration could occur between men that would still be entirely sexual -- and they aren't actually mentioned in Scripture, that I can recall -- but the general assumption in our religious and secular cultures is that it's all part of one package (no pun intended) and is either collectively condemned or collectively celebrated. (b) I know this is like the third rail of fundamentalist patriarchal Biblical polygyny, but, if there is a distinction, and the other sexual behaviors are not specifically prohibited, does that at all open the door to condoning or tolerating them? (c) Does it really matter how many entries there are into the forbidden zone; i.e., is it only after one develops a habit or a serious pattern of bone smuggling that YHWH asserts it is abominable?
This reminds me of a Christian sex ed talk that I watched as a teenager, where the lady made a great point. She said that everyone wanted to know where the line was (in terms of what level of petting of a girl/boyfriend would be ok etc). She said something like "I'm not going to tell you the line. You all just want to know where the line is so you can go right up to the line on the first date, and then having gone there already you'll end up on the other side." Her concluding advice was intentionally simply "Keep your pants on".
On this, if we really want to define the line, I think it's easy to define, and the line we find will be very uncomfortable. Because there's a whole host of things that are not past the line, but really you shouldn't be doing them because they will just intensify the temptation to go past the line. So, if I were to answer your questions, I'd say:
a) The line is to lie with him as with a woman, which most logically means penetration - anal or arguably oral. If there's penetration, you've crossed the line.
b) Yes, they could be tolerated. If you really wanted to keep feeding the temptation to cross the line until you ended up across it.
c) Can't see any number mentioned in scripture, so by default one entry to the forbidden zone is the line.
In summary: It's fine to conduct a medical examination of another guy's penis, but if while doing it you feel the temptation to "examine" it with your mouth or anus, you need another job.
What is consistent about sin throughout Scripture is that it is a matter of turning one's back on YHWH in favor of some form of idolatry (behaving in accordance with seeking approval from the world rather than from YHWH. It's essential to remember the context of Yeshua's statement about looking at a woman in lust being a matter of committing adultery in one's soul. He wasn't speaking with the intent to either condemn sexual desire or create punishments for it; He was directly responding to those who were attempting to (a) back Him into a theological corner, and (c) virtue signal how pious they were. His statement was not aimed at defining sin; his statement was aimed at their pride and had the intention to shame them for it.
Therefore, I think citing that is, technically, a distraction.
YHWH knows our hearts, and He therefore knows that every one of us has fantasies and desires that we would prefer that no one else know about. In fact, He even knows that the more we attempt to be pious, the more it is the case that we are in hiding about what occurs within our soul. His prohibitions were purposefully behavioral, because in His Wisdom He Knows beyond our ability to comprehend that it is the behavior that will be destructive. Had, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer successfully kept his fantasies to himself, he would not have violated YHWH's law in that regard, and we never would have heard of him.