 |
| Colmar, France-Facebook |
 |
| Walking late at night. |
Good scholarship goes a long way...even when some do not like it.
On what Dr. Michael Brown (Deleted video on You Tube) stated:
Matthew 5: Sexual morals of the Torah are taken to a higher level.
From my Matthew 5 post
Matthew 5: 27-30
English Standard Version 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
France reasons the seventh commandment does not exist to prohibit a natural sexual attraction (p.121) but rather the desire for 'an illicit relationship'. France (1985: 121). ἐπιθυμῆσαι (to desire) from verse 28.
From Marshall.
28 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν
But I tell you that everyone seeing a woman with a view to desire (her) already committed adultery with αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. her in the heart of him. France explains Jesus equates such a lustful attitude with 'implicit theft' (p. 121). If Jesus was more so concentrating on the greater sin of adultery as opposed to the lessor sin of fornication (where no married person is concerned) he was still in no way condoning the lessor sin. Ellison (1986: 1124: 1125).
Jesus Christ was using metaphorical, figurative language concerning the eye and the hand in this context. France (1985: 121: 122). One eye and one hand should be metaphorically, figuratively eliminated from the human body if this led to the end of lust. France (1985: 121: 122). This 'self-mutilation is not to be taken literally' (p. 122). The key here is an avoidance of temptation that will involve sacrifice, a changing philosophy, thought pattern and habits.
As the Biblical model from Genesis 2 is heterosexual marriage, any sexual activity outside of that would be adultery or fornication.
Dr. Brown is correct.
Matthew 15:15-20 New American Standard Version
15 Peter [f]said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 [g]Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? 17 Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is [h]eliminated? 18 But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, [i]fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”
Therefore, adultery and fornication defiles.
Dr. Brown is correct.
Matthew 19: 1-9 New American Standard Version
19 When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2 and [a]large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to [b]Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [c]divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to [d]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever [e]divorces his wife, except for [f]immorality, and marries another woman [g]commits adultery[h].”
Marriage is stated to be male and female by Jesus Christ. To divorce a wife, except for immorality means one commits adultery.
Again implying all other sexual acts including same-sex would be adultery or fornication.
Dr. Brown is correct.
Loving one's neighbour from Matthew 22, and Mark 12 definitely does not constitute approval of the views, morals and actions of another. Rather it is a respectful love, respectful love of the humanity of the person made in the image of God, Genesis 1: 27.
Dr. Brown is correct.
Leviticus 18
Leviticus 18:22
New American Standard Version 22
You shall not lie with a male as [a]one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Even as the Bible is not flat, as discussed on this blog, the old Covenant being replaced by the new.
Hebrews 12: 24
New American Standard Version
24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
Hebrews 8: 6-7
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
Luke 22: 20 20
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."
The old covenant and its ceremonial laws have been abandoned in the new covenant. The atoning work of Christ replacing animal sacrifice. However, the moral aspects of the law continue. This makes sense of Jesus' statement that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5: 17)
Dr. Brown is correct.
Mr. Hill, a political commentator according to the video, instead of humbling himself and stating that Biblical Studies is not his field, politics is, attempts to debate someone that is an expert in the field of the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament.
Even apart from the topic discussed the issue of a disrespect for Religious Studies as an academic pursuit is once again demonstrated in Western society.
As if a political commentator with some reading from perhaps some scholarly sources thinks he is going to debate this well-known scholar and correct him of his errors; because it is socially proper.
Do you think the same thing would be done with a scientist?
Not nearly as likely.
There is the problem of a disrespect of Religious Studies scholarship as a serious academic pursuit which is philosophically connected to the over-subjectivity of religious issues. As in if religious views are overly subjective and personalized, therefore more objective focused academic scholarship is questionable and can be dismissed when it disagrees with these subjective, personalized views.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
