Hermeneutics II

December 5, 2007 in Uncategorized
Tags: Bible, Equality Ride, hermeneutics, homosexuality

This is the second in a series on hermeneutics.  See part 1.

Example 2: Homosexuality at the Seminary

Moving from my hero here at the College to two professors at our Seminary, I will present another example of masters at work. Two Seminary professors worked together to write “A Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality” as a response to the arguments of the Equality Riders. These two scholars perfectly exemplify good hermeneutics. They write [emphasis mine.]:

Leviticus 18:22 (TNIV) reads, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” While some of the laws in the holiness code (including those regulating sexual behavior) reflect a desire to set Israel apart from the nations and protect the uniqueness of Israel, the use of the term “detestable” points to its universal scope.

The term “detestable” [toeba] is used to refer to something that is detestable or repugnant to someone. The detestable nature is determined by the person’s character and values. For God to declare something to be “detestable” is to declare that belief or practice to be contrary to his character. These are not things that are culturally bound and therefore limited to that time and place, but are universal since God’s character does not change. The use of the term demonstrates that this law regulating homosexual behavior is dealing with holiness (and is therefore relevant in all times and cultures) not purity (which is restricted in its direct applicability to ancient Israel).

So you might think that every time you see that word, “detestable”, it is applicable to us. Not so hasty! If that were true then all of the talent shows and dramas at our University in which men dress as women or women as men would be against God’s nature. It would also be detestable for a prostitute to pay tithes or for pimps to pay tithes off the wages of their prostitutes. It would be detestable to carve an image as is done by many artists and art students here.

But worst of all, God uses that same word to describe dishonesty.  He calls it an abomination.  (Deut. 25.16)  Certainly dishonesty and homosexuality are not on the same level.  Consider what would happen if a student came to his professor’s office and lied about why he missed some work and the professor, feeling generous, lied about his policy on late work.  Nothing would happen.  Consider what would happen if a student came to his professor and had homosexual sex.  Obviously, there is a difference.

So why are all these “detestable” things OK today? You might guess that it is because those other verses are all in Deuteronomy, not Leviticus. You might think that what the seminary professors meant is that when that word occurs in Leviticus, then is is applicable to us.

Wrong again! If that were true, then we anyone who has eaten shrimp or pork or snake or many other yummy foods would be doing a detestable thing.

So, you might think that it is only when a verse is talking about the detestability of homosexual sex in Leviticus that we are to take the verse as universally applicable. Wrong again! Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Certainly we don’t advocate the death penalty for homosexuals. No, we know they just need some counseling.

So, what is the final conclusion? This: the word “detestable” indicates that a verse is applicable to all cultures at all times if that verse is Leviticus 18:22.

This is very advanced hermeneutics. This is why interpreting the Bible should be left to the experts and not attempted by others.

Practice hermeneutics

But let’s give it a try anyway: does the Bible teach that women should “learn in silence with all submissiveness” and that “woman will be saved through bearing children?” The hasty student will say, “Yes, it’s all there in I Timothy 2.11-15.” Be careful! We aren’t sure whether this transcends culture or not! Since I’ve never heard this passage mentioned by the experts, I suppose it does not.

Here are a few for you to practice on: Does the Bible teach that an unmarried rape victim must marry the rapist and may never divorce as long as he lives? (Deuteronomy 22:28,29) Does the Bible teach that if a man suspects his wife of adultery he can take her to the priest who will perform an abortion? (Numbers 5.11-31)

Those were too easy. Clearly the Old Testament teachings on sex and marriage only transcend culture when they are condemning homosexuality. Do any of my readers have more challenging examples?

Back to the seminary

If I may get back to the great work of my Seminary colleagues, they go on to justify our righteous practice of excluding homosexuals or singling them out for special counseling by quoting the times when Paul’s lists of sins include homosexual behavior.

What do they do about the fact that those same lists include mention of the sins of slander, lying, greed, cheating, and using religion for capital gain? Should we exclude those who do these things? Should we put them in counseling until they repent? Nothing of the kind is suggested. So why is the evil sin of homosexual behavior singled out? As I mentioned above, this is answered by looking elsewhere in the Bible and considering the works of conservative evangelical commentators.

Lest we identify homosexual behavior as somehow unique or the greatest of all sins, it should be noted that Paul goes on to list many other sins that result from our fallen state, including envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, God-hating, insolence, arrogance, etc. (1:29-31). Paul probably singles out homosexuality for discussion because same-sex relationships so clearly represent a distortion of the created order established in Genesis 2:18-24.

First we must recognize that homosexuality is singled out by Paul from the other sins on his lists. We know it is singled out by Paul because, well, because the hermeneutics experts say it is. The important question is not, “What makes you think it is singled out?” The important question is, “Why is it singled out?”

The other sins on the list are not singled out by the experts because, well, come on, normal people do those other things!

Homosexuality is singled out because contemporary conservative evangelical commentators say that it clearly represents a distortion of the created order established in another book of the Bible.

If you read that several times and repeat it to yourself for a while, it stops seeming like a trick and starts to make sense. That skill is an important one in conservative evangelicalism.  This is why we have Sunday school and seminary.