1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,960 All right, today we're jumping into a really interesting topic 2 00:00:02,960 --> 00:00:05,520 by summarizing some arguments from the podcast series The 3 00:00:05,520 --> 00:00:07,800 Queer Christian. We're going to be looking at 2 4 00:00:07,800 --> 00:00:10,640 specific verses from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament. 5 00:00:11,000 --> 00:00:13,800 Now, these are often called clobber verses, and for a long, 6 00:00:13,800 --> 00:00:16,379 long time they've been the foundation for condemning same 7 00:00:16,379 --> 00:00:18,920 sex relationships. But this source we're exploring 8 00:00:18,920 --> 00:00:20,680 offers a very different way to look at them. 9 00:00:21,040 --> 00:00:23,120 So let's start by looking at the verses themselves. 10 00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:28,280 OK, so first up we've got Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22. 11 00:00:28,480 --> 00:00:32,280 It reads you shall not lie. With a male as with a woman, it 12 00:00:32,280 --> 00:00:34,840 is an abomination. Pretty straightforward, right? 13 00:00:35,200 --> 00:00:37,840 I mean, on the surface it seems like a very clear, direct 14 00:00:37,840 --> 00:00:39,760 prohibition. This verse has been a 15 00:00:39,760 --> 00:00:42,000 cornerstone for traditional views for century. 16 00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:45,400 And it doesn't stop there. Just a couple chapters later in 17 00:00:45,400 --> 00:00:49,080 chapter 20, the same idea is repeated, but this time it adds 18 00:00:49,080 --> 00:00:51,160 a pretty severe consequence. Quote. 19 00:00:51,560 --> 00:00:53,840 They shall be put to death. Whoa. 20 00:00:54,200 --> 00:00:57,360 So when you just read these two verses by themselves in English, 21 00:00:57,560 --> 00:00:59,320 they seem incredibly direct and damning. 22 00:00:59,880 --> 00:01:02,640 And you can see why for a lot of people, that's pretty much the 23 00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:04,800 end of the discussion, right? Case closed. 24 00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:07,880 But the argument from our source material today asks a really 25 00:01:07,880 --> 00:01:10,600 important question. What happens when we zoom out? 26 00:01:10,880 --> 00:01:13,320 What's the bigger picture that these verses are actually a part 27 00:01:13,320 --> 00:01:15,600 of? So let's do exactly that. 28 00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:18,840 Let's pull back the lens a bit, because here's the thing, these 29 00:01:18,840 --> 00:01:20,560 verses don't just exist in a vacuum. 30 00:01:20,800 --> 00:01:23,920 They're art of a much larger ancient legal document called 31 00:01:23,920 --> 00:01:26,600 the Holiness Code, which was written for a very specific 32 00:01:26,600 --> 00:01:29,600 group of people in a very specific time in history. 33 00:01:30,240 --> 00:01:33,040 And this is absolutely crucial to the whole argument. 34 00:01:33,280 --> 00:01:36,120 These aren't 2 stand alone commandments just dropped from 35 00:01:36,120 --> 00:01:38,680 the sky. Nope, they are just two little 36 00:01:38,680 --> 00:01:42,240 entries in a long, super detailed list of rules that 37 00:01:42,240 --> 00:01:45,320 covered almost every part of ancient Israelite life, from 38 00:01:45,320 --> 00:01:48,440 what you could eat to what you could wear, to how you farmed. 39 00:01:49,040 --> 00:01:51,120 And we're not talking about a handful of rules here. 40 00:01:51,480 --> 00:01:54,040 The sheer scale is, well, it's massive. 41 00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:57,280 We're talking about over 70 different laws. 42 00:01:57,880 --> 00:02:01,080 This wasn't just a simple list of do's and don'ts, it was the 43 00:02:01,080 --> 00:02:03,120 entire framework for their society. 44 00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:06,520 And this is where it gets really fascinating because you start to 45 00:02:06,520 --> 00:02:10,320 see what else is on this list. For example, Leviticus says you 46 00:02:10,320 --> 00:02:13,400 can't eat shrimp or pork. You can't wear a shirt made of a 47 00:02:13,400 --> 00:02:16,080 cotton Poly blend. You can't even trim your beard. 48 00:02:16,600 --> 00:02:19,520 It also gives the death penalty for cursing at your parents or 49 00:02:19,520 --> 00:02:22,880 for working on a Saturday. But at the same time it commands 50 00:02:22,880 --> 00:02:26,280 that foreigners must be treated just like native born citizens. 51 00:02:26,440 --> 00:02:30,160 It's a really complex mix. So all of this leads to a really 52 00:02:30,160 --> 00:02:32,000 big question. And this is the core of the 53 00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:34,720 source materials argument. If all these rules come from the 54 00:02:34,720 --> 00:02:37,920 exact same holiness code, why are these two verses about same 55 00:02:37,920 --> 00:02:41,200 sex acts treated like timeless universal moral laws while 56 00:02:41,200 --> 00:02:43,640 almost all the others are just dismissed as being culturally 57 00:02:43,640 --> 00:02:45,920 specific? And, you know, not for us today. 58 00:02:46,640 --> 00:02:49,080 OK, check this out. It's a fantastic example. 59 00:02:49,360 --> 00:02:52,160 The rule about men lying with men is in chapter 18. 60 00:02:52,480 --> 00:02:55,240 Just one chapter later, we get the rule against trimming 61 00:02:55,240 --> 00:02:57,520 beards. So why is 1 treated like this 62 00:02:57,520 --> 00:03:00,800 unbreakable moral law for all time while the other is so 63 00:03:00,800 --> 00:03:03,960 totally ignored that, let's be honest, many churches probably 64 00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:07,440 prefer a nicely trimmed beard? Or how about this one, which is 65 00:03:07,440 --> 00:03:10,560 even more stark? The very same chapter, chapter 66 00:03:10,560 --> 00:03:13,840 20, that calls for the death penalty for men lying together 67 00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:17,000 also calls for the death penalty for anyone who curses their 68 00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:19,600 parents. And yet you would have a very 69 00:03:19,600 --> 00:03:22,440 hard time finding anyone today who thinks that's a good idea. 70 00:03:22,960 --> 00:03:25,680 This selective application is what the source calls cherry 71 00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:28,160 picking. And you know, the inconsistency 72 00:03:28,160 --> 00:03:30,560 gets even weirder. I mean, think about it. 73 00:03:30,760 --> 00:03:34,120 Many people who hold up this verse as a timeless moral law 74 00:03:34,320 --> 00:03:37,120 are only applying the first half of it, the part that condemns 75 00:03:37,120 --> 00:03:39,120 the ACT. They totally ignore the 76 00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:41,360 second-half that demands the death penalty. 77 00:03:41,600 --> 00:03:44,800 That's a huge inconsistency inside a single sentence. 78 00:03:45,280 --> 00:03:47,080 All right, so that's the whole consistency issue. 79 00:03:47,320 --> 00:03:50,400 But there's another huge piece to this puzzle, the language 80 00:03:50,400 --> 00:03:52,600 itself. The argument here, is that a 81 00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:56,040 keyword, a really important word at the heart of these verses, 82 00:03:56,320 --> 00:03:58,520 might not mean what we all think it means today. 83 00:03:59,080 --> 00:04:03,240 And it all hinges on one single powerful word, abomination. 84 00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:06,920 We hear that word and it sounds, well, it sounds really, really 85 00:04:06,920 --> 00:04:11,040 bad, like a deep moral evil. But the question is, what did 86 00:04:11,040 --> 00:04:14,880 the original Hebrew word taweba actually mean to the people who 87 00:04:14,880 --> 00:04:17,959 first heard it? Well, according to our source, 88 00:04:18,160 --> 00:04:20,360 this is where things get lost in translation. 89 00:04:20,680 --> 00:04:23,520 Toeba, it turns out, was more of a technical term. 90 00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:27,200 It didn't always mean something was inherently sinful or evil. 91 00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:30,720 Often it just meant something was ritually or culturally 92 00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:33,160 unclean. For the ancient Israelites, for 93 00:04:33,160 --> 00:04:35,440 example, eating pork was a toeba. 94 00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:38,280 Wearing that Poly cotton blend was a toeba. 95 00:04:38,640 --> 00:04:41,440 The focus was all about maintaining the state of ritual 96 00:04:41,440 --> 00:04:44,320 purity. So you might be asking why all 97 00:04:44,320 --> 00:04:46,160 this focus on being ritually pure? 98 00:04:46,520 --> 00:04:49,280 Well, the argument is that it was all about identity. 99 00:04:49,480 --> 00:04:52,160 The Holiness Code was basically designed to make the nation of 100 00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:55,080 Israel distinct, to set them apart from their Pagan neighbors 101 00:04:55,080 --> 00:04:56,960 in Canaan. And these neighbors were known 102 00:04:56,960 --> 00:04:59,840 for practices like temple prostitution, both heterosexual 103 00:04:59,840 --> 00:05:02,280 and homosexual, which the Israelites were commanded to 104 00:05:02,280 --> 00:05:05,280 stay far away from. And this all leads up to a major 105 00:05:05,280 --> 00:05:07,680 theological turning point. The source we're looking at 106 00:05:07,680 --> 00:05:10,520 cites Dr. Ralph Blair, a theologian who argues that this 107 00:05:10,520 --> 00:05:13,720 entire system of ritual purity was essentially wiped away with 108 00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:15,120 the new Covenant in the New Testament. 109 00:05:15,480 --> 00:05:18,440 The argument is that both Jesus and the apostle Paul completely 110 00:05:18,440 --> 00:05:20,880 rejected these kinds of ritual distinctions between what's 111 00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:23,960 clean and unclean and instead focused on what's going on in a 112 00:05:23,960 --> 00:05:26,240 person's heart. OK, so let's step back and look 113 00:05:26,240 --> 00:05:28,560 at what we've got. When you put all these pieces on 114 00:05:28,560 --> 00:05:31,800 the table, the huge and mostly ignored context of the Holiness 115 00:05:31,800 --> 00:05:34,520 code, the really inconsistent way it's applied, and the 116 00:05:34,520 --> 00:05:37,720 disputed translation of that keyword, the source argues that 117 00:05:37,720 --> 00:05:39,960 the traditional interpretation starts to look like it's 118 00:05:39,960 --> 00:05:43,720 standing on very shaky ground. So let's just layout the three 119 00:05:43,720 --> 00:05:46,120 core arguments that are really chipping away at that 120 00:05:46,120 --> 00:05:49,440 traditional view. First, the verses are yanked out 121 00:05:49,440 --> 00:05:51,880 of their original legal and cultural context. 122 00:05:52,320 --> 00:05:55,960 Second, their application is incredibly inconsistent when you 123 00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:58,280 look at all the other laws in the exact same code. 124 00:05:58,640 --> 00:06:03,320 And 3rd, the translation of that central word abomination is very 125 00:06:03,320 --> 00:06:06,160 much up for debate. And this all leads to a really 126 00:06:06,160 --> 00:06:08,920 powerful image the source uses to wrap this all up. 127 00:06:09,360 --> 00:06:12,560 A House of Cards. With the context missing, the 128 00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:16,000 consistency gone, and the translation challenged, the 129 00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:19,440 entire argument built on Leviticus becomes, in this view, 130 00:06:19,440 --> 00:06:22,040 a House of Cards. You pull out any one of those 131 00:06:22,040 --> 00:06:24,120 pieces and the whole thing just collapses. 132 00:06:24,440 --> 00:06:27,520 And that leaves us with this final, really thought provoking 133 00:06:27,520 --> 00:06:29,320 question. What changes in our 134 00:06:29,320 --> 00:06:32,560 understanding when we start to view ancient rules not as this 135 00:06:32,560 --> 00:06:36,600 flat list of timeless commands for everybody, but as complex 136 00:06:36,600 --> 00:06:39,680 ideas that were products of their own specific time and 137 00:06:39,680 --> 00:06:42,400 their own specific place? That was a summary of arguments 138 00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:44,800 from the podcast series The Queer Christian by Elton 139 00:06:44,800 --> 00:06:47,560 Sherwin, which is available on most podcast services.