He appeals to the flowery language of the Biblical texts regarding the relationships of Ruth/Naomi and David/Jonathan (plus other smaller examples), and thus floats the possibility (with the obvious intent of promoting this view) that they were flourishing homosexual relationships. For Naomi and Ruth, Alan, like other homosexualists [2], appeals to Ruth 1:14's use of דָּבַק (davaq - to cleave) as a hint towards a homosexual relationship, because this same word is used in Genesis 2:24, which describes the normative marital relationship:
Ruth 1:14 [3]:
וַתִּשֶּׂנָה קוֹלָן, וַתִּבְכֶּינָה עוֹד; וַתִּשַּׁק עָרְפָּה לַחֲמוֹתָהּ, וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ
"And they raised their voices, and they wept again. And Orpah kissed her
mother-in-law, but Ruth clung with her." [4]
Genesis 2:24:
עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד
"Upon thus [or "for this reason"], a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife, And they will become unto one flesh."
To the untrained reader (the ideal target of the homosexualist), this sounds pretty decisive; same words, ergo, same idea. But even a beginner in Biblical Hebrew would know to look up the various uses of the word in the scriptures. Here are a couple of interesting examples that ought to make the homosexualist think twice about this supposed proof:
Numbers 36:9:
וְלֹא-תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה מִמַּטֶּה, לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר: כִּי-אִישׁ, בְּנַחֲלָתוֹ, יִדְבְּקוּ, מַטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
"And no inheritance shall turn from a tribe to another tribe. For a man, from the sons of Israel, shall cling with his inheritance."
So I guess the Torah promotes sexual relations with one's inanimate property.
And Deuteronomy 10:20
אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא, אֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד; וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק, וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ
"YHWH your God you shall fear; him you shall serve; and with him you shall cleave; and in his name you shall swear."
I won't even state the blasphemous implications of the homosexualist appeal to davaq on this verse.
So it's clear that this argument is DOA; nothing but a mere possibility, which itself is not an argument. And this technical "possibility" is drowned out by literally the entire book of Ruth, where Naomi and Ruth are mother and daughter in law.
This is what the homosexualist does. He takes a wholesome account of an intimate relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law and stains it with sexual overtones (keep this in mind for later).
This is what the homosexualist does. He takes a wholesome account of an intimate relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law and stains it with sexual overtones (keep this in mind for later).
What about the appeal to David and Jonathan? Those passages Alan pulls up appear quite close, even sexual. But one need not be a Hebrew scholar to see that this merely imposes a lens that sees sex in everything upon a clearly non-sexual relationship, just like with Ruth and Naomi. And it is clear that this relationship was not sexual because A: David and Jonathan are never recorded engaging in the act of sex, or "lying" with one another, as Hebrew often puts it (שָׁכַב - shachav, to lie down; either resting, death, or lying in bed as in a sexual relationship), and B: Alan quotes 2 Samuel 1:26, NIV, where David grieves Jonathan's death by saying "You were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of a woman", a supposed proof of homoerotic feelings. But in that exact verse, David himself describes the nature of his relationship with Jonathan:
צַר-לִי עָלֶיךָ, אָחִי יְהוֹנָתָן
"I grieve upon you, my brother Jonathan."
A brother, not a gay boyfriend he met at the local Baal shrine. And this is literally just before the section Alan quotes. Why would he cut out a piece of the same verse that qualifies its meaning? Maybe Alan isn't so honest in his handling of the scriptures.
He raises more examples, but this was supposed to be a shorter rant, not a commentary. I will point readers to this excellent article dismantling the claim that the Centurion and servant of Luke chapter 7, the latter of whom Jesus healed, were likely gay boyfriends. And if anyone genuinely can't address his other little claims, please do comment so, and I will reply promptly.
But now I want to get to the point of the title. Notice that a simple reading of these passages on Ruth/Naomi and David/Jonathan, in Hebrew or any English translation, does not even hint at sexual relations unless you are predisposed to that mindset. They were definitely close and intimate, even uncomfortably so to western eyes, especially David and Jonathan, but sexual desire and actions are never recorded. Yet homosexualists feel compelled to force a sexual connotation upon these texts. Why? Do they not understand how men and women can be in such an intimate relationship without sex? Does this even register in their brain? And dare I say that this is the same for homosexuals too, since one can find this pattern of distorted ideas on male relationships in many accounts of former homosexuals. This account here is a hard read, but the story therein reflects this sad truth, and proves why it is an imperative for the Church to minister to the homosexuals and draw them to God's truth:
There were a few other unathletic boys in my class, either overweight or exceedingly short, who also got similarly passed-over. But they could turn rejection into an advantage through comical self-deprecation or by poking fun at me or someone else. I couldn’t do that. I tended to take everything to heart. I froze at the merest slight. The often cruel unthinking banter of boys seemed deliberately vicious. Yet, the more they rejected and taunted me, the more I wanted to belong. My childhood fantasies began to center around a benevolent superhero who would adopt me as his sidekick. In the afternoon, I would rush home to see after-school reruns of “Batman” and imagine myself as Burt Ward. To this day, it’s highly significant that homoerotic fantasies about Batman and Robin are pervasive in gay male culture.This is the fruit of the homosexualist; men who can't form close male bonds instead learn to fornicate with every mildly attractive male at the bar. You can no longer become intimate with a man without a sex drive drilling through your brain.
Recently, a middle eastern Christian friend explained to me the closeness of males in his culture. The intimacy is close, very close, even suggestive to westerners. But the idea of homosexual relations never occurs in their minds, because they are just brothers doing what brothers do. The fact that this was new information to me proved how the society that raised me is lost on male relationships. Two or more men cannot be close, give each other a hug and kiss on the cheek, and even hold hands in public (a norm across Arabic, Mesopotamian, and African cultures) without being seen as homosexuals.
I grow more depressed as I think about it, that young men are losing the benefits of tight brotherhood. But that depression is routinely suppressed by my hope in the Lord and His Word. Christian societies have always been assaulted by degeneracy since the beginning, yet by the power of the Holy Spirit, we have been pulled out of the darkness time and time again. Indeed, the threat in European and Anglo-sphere nations is massive and unprecedented, yet it can never be more powerful than God and His will. Even if modern evils cause most believers to fall away, there will always be a remnant God builds from, as we saw with Israel in the golden calf incident, and the origin of Christianity itself, being formed from a remnant of faithful Jews.
By God's grace, western men will relearn the benefits of true masculinity and brotherhood, and I hope to be a vessel for this revival.
______________________________________________________
[1] - By homosexualist, I mean those who promote homosexual relationships as good and normative, particularly in Church contexts. The homosexualist may or may not be a homosexual himself, but their hypersexualised mindsets are alike.
[2] Just a couple of examples from the first search I did:
https://www.lesbiannews.com/ruth-and-naomi-biblical-love-between-two-women-flashbackfriday/
and
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html
https://www.lesbiannews.com/ruth-and-naomi-biblical-love-between-two-women-flashbackfriday/
and
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html
[3] HTML Hebrew texts courtesy of https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
[4] - English translations are my own unless stated otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment