John R. Houk
© July 21, 2017
On June 26, 2013 I posted at my NCCR blog (one of three blogs) entitled “SCOTUS Continues to Push America into Ungodliness”. The Supreme Court had just struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) enabling homosexuals to legally marry in the same manner as heterosexuals. I was very displeased that SCOTUS extra-Constitutionally circumvented traditional marriage that a majority of States upheld, meaning a majority of the voting We the People.
In the comment section to the post “SCOTUS Continues to Push America into Ungodliness” a person identifying themselves as Debbs was quite upset with my Biblical stand and embarked on a path of criticism of my interpretation of the Bible as unsound theology on July 17, 2017. I am assuming “Debbs” is a female.
Here is a refresher to my thoughts roughly four years ago.
I cited Scripture from the Holy Bible justifying my disagreement with SCOTUS and the American Left in general. I even found a photo of a Bible page highlighting Leviticus 18: 22:
I shared the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah from Genesis 19 (verses 1, 4-11, 13, 24-25 for brevity’s sake). In case you listen to Biblical revisionists, here is God’s perspective: God obliterated the two city areas because of moral depravity which included primarily but not limited to homosexuality.
Now from the Christian perspective Jesus Christ the Son of God has Redeemed Believers from the curse of the Law which God gave through Moses. Redemption in Christ means the penalty of sin is not held as judgment for the person who has turned their life to Christ abandoning the ways of the unredeemed individual. (I just slipped into the realm of the politically correct to make the Left happy. The Bible uses the word “man” which means instead of “person” I could have written “man”. And yet, “man” is used as in the sense of mankind which is inclusive of both males and females. And yes, I realize the word “mankind” is repugnant to the PC Left who might rather use “humankind”. Get over it. 😊)
The Law’s penalty for homosexuality was death. Thank God Jesus has Redeemed believing humanity from that penalty. Enforcing that penalty would mean the State would have to locate a lot of rocks. Thank God Christianity has been an influence on Western Culture enough that our society has abandoned the penalty of the Old Testament Law in the Western Criminal Justice System.
You would do well to read all the Epistle to the Galatians, but here is the part on the Law, the Curse and Redemption in Chapter 3:
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[a] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”[b] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”[c]
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[d]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Bold text Editor’s – Gal. 3: 10-14 NKJV)
And yet if one lives an unredeemed life (Christian or sinner), there is a price that one pays in the flesh. The Mercy of God is eternal for those who ask for forgiveness with a true heart (God knows the true heart from the false heart. It’s not like you can lie for forgiveness and fool God like you might another person).
The New Testament makes it quite clear on what is true morality from the false morality that claims if it feels good it is okay to do. Romans the sixth chapter is one place:
6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. (Bold text Editor’s – Rom. 6: 1-4, 12-19 NKJV)
I am perturbed on how activist Courts make laws rather than adjudicating the text of the Original meaning of the Constitution. Spiritual minded Leftists do the same revisionism to God’s Word, in this case pertaining to homosexuality. Romans chapter one affirms that God still is extremely displeased with homosexuality. AND God is the Creator of ALL that exists, thus He sets the rules:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Bold Text Editor’s – Rom. 1: 18, 24, 26-27, 32 NKJV)
Take note that “deserving of death” is the penalty under the Law. The Redemptive Blood of Christ expiates the penalty of the Law, but God Almighty still considers homosexuality a sin that separates a person from the Presence of God. Eternal separation from God is the Second Death that occurs at the Last Judgment when one is sent to hell in permanent separation from the Presence of God.
People! Always choose life rather than any rule of man that will separate you from God. That has been the path of Activist Judges for decades and not just in 2013 with DOMA. Revisionist theologians have been doing the same harm to the Holy Bible.
Debbs uses the standard theology argument that comes from Leftist theologians that are attempting to revise God’s intent much like Activist Judges are revising the Constitution’s Original Intent by creating law the Constitution reserves ONLY for Congress or Amended by the sovereign States via ratification or Convention.
Unlike the Constitution, God’s Word cannot be amended to suit the creation over the intent of the Creator. Hence, homosexuality was wrong in the Old Testament Law but only the penalty is forgiven in the age of Grace that Redeems humanity by faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God.
So, I am going to refute the revisionist theology that Debbs uses to contradict my agreement with the Word of God. From this point on, my thoughts and responses will be in bold text and Debbs comments at NCCR will be in plain text and indented as a quote.
First Debbs goes on a bit of a rant on me misusing “ORIGINAL words” because the English translation has a different meaning than the ancient Hebrew:
Only cowards print articles and don’t allow comments on the page.
Well, I guess I’m not a coward because her comment exists.
I could write plenty of things with conviction from the Bible that would cause people’s heads to spin. Anyone can copy passages from an ENGLISH translation of a bible (and anyone can use a variation of translations for key words to0); but the ORIGINAL words and what they mean are important and cannot be overlooked. If the Bible is the Word of God, then there is no other book that is more important to have its original Hebrew words translated correctly. Otherwise, they aren’t the God’s words, they are the words of the translators. Not only do you have to get the translation correct, but a study of the same word should include comparisons where that word is used again and again.
I actually concur with Debbs that the context of the most original manuscripts is quite important to making written content current, but as in the proper interpretation as opposed to revisionism.
And, is it not dishonest for “Christians”- those who follow His teachings, to completely ignore what Jesus said or didn’t say on any given subject? Is it not dishonest to draw a conclusion about one story, yet ignore the explanation from a biblical Prophet that contradicts that conclusion? And if one thing is an abomination and “Christians” go out of their way to demonize and dehumanize a group of persons (ignoring the Prophet Ezekiel and the Saviour) and even try to pass laws to subjugate and oppress that group based on their “Christianity”; should they not do the same with every single “abomination” listed in the same Biblical books? Shouldn’t they be even more aggressively attacking violations of the 10 Commandment or the things the Lord HATES and Detests?
Yes Debbs, it would be dishonest to ignore what Jesus said or didn’t say as long as you realize what He didn’t say is in context as being viewed as a fellow Jew by most of His listeners. Jesus does not terminate the Torah or the Tanakh, rather He affirms them. I also concur whatever was detestable in the Old Testament is still detestable before God today. As far as Christians are concerned, what is detestable in the Old Testament is forgiven in the New Testament by virtue the penalty of the Law is paid for by the Blood of Jesus.
Abominations (list sourced from All 613 Commandments in the Old Testament Law):
- Women not to dress as a man (the context being to look like a man) – Deuteronomy 22:5
- Don’t eat unclean birds; example in Scripture: eagles, vultures, buzzards, ravens, owls, storks, herons, bats and their kind – Leviticus 11:13-19
- Don’t eat creeping things that creep. According to Pulpit Commentary found at BibleHub.com: Verses 41-43. – The last class is that of vermin, which constitute a part of the un-winged creeping class already spoken of (verses 29, 30). Whatsoever goeth upon the belly indicates snakes, worms, maggots: whatsoever goeth upon all four, things that grovel, as moles, rats, hedgehogs; whatsoever hath more feet, or doth multiply feet, centipedes, caterpillars, spiders. – Leviticus 11: 41-44
- If divorce wife and she marries another and for whatever she becomes marriage eligible, can’t remarry her – Deuteronomy 24: 1-4
Some of these abominations seem quite ridiculous in this day and age. I have no idea if observant Jews adhere to the abomination list except I can confidently say the Temple burnt offering are not a concern today. Much of the dietary abominations could be reasoned with a gentile-Christian Redemption from Law’s penalty. A cursory examination shows that of the abomination list above only homosexuality (and some other sex no-nos) was a death sentence. Of the death sentences only homosexuality is a sex-sin abomination specifically listed. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out sex-sins are bad, but homosexuality is really bad – Leviticus chapter 20. Pertaining to homosexuality is Leviticus 20: 13 (NKJV):
13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
And, if the religious right’s political support and beliefs are about cutting/eliminating social programs that have successfully helped the elderly, disabled, poor and hungry; and they distrust and do not want to “share” America’s abundance of food and wealth or offer protection and refuge to refugees and immigrants- then are they not “Sodomites” according to the Prophet Ezekiel?
Debbs you need to read Ezekiel a little better I think. In referencing sodomites and social programs to the poor, is NOT what Ezekiel said in which the context is the Jewish rulers living in Jerusalem:
46 “Your elder sister is Samaria, who dwells with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who dwells to the south of you, is Sodom and her daughters. 47 You did not walk in their ways nor act according to their abominations; but, as if that were too little, you became more corrupt than they in all your ways.
48 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.[a] (Ezekiel 16: 46-50 NKJV)
History lesson time: Samaria was the capital city of the 10 northern Hebrew tribes who retained the name Israel when the ten tribes separated from the two southern tribes which went by the name Judah. The northern tribal rulers had taken on the corrupt nature of their surrounding neighbor nations in becoming polytheistic which included temple prostitutes (male and female), sacrificing children in burnt offerings and other manners of social oppression.
Sodom had been destroyed long before the 12 Hebrew tribes formed a Jewish nation ultimately called Israel under the kings Saul. David and Solomon. Sodom’s destruction was in the days of Abraham. And we have already discussed the perversions that became so evil that God destroyed the people living in Sodom and its sister city-state Gomorrah. A clue to the most repulsive sin is that the homosexual sex-act of sodomy is named after Sodom.
In referencing Sodom and Samaria, Ezekiel is telling the rulers based in Jerusalem that they too will be destroyed as a nation. Sodom’s perversions resulted in obliteration by fire and brimstone. Samaria’s rejection of the God that freed them Egyptian slavery, resulted in a massive deportation of the ruling elite to an uncertain destination left to historical guess work.
Judah’s rulers had morally devolved as well and Ezekiel warned the end of the kingdom was coming unless they changed their ways. Judah’s rulers did not change and later during the days of the Prophet Isaiah the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar did to Judah what the Assyrian kings did to the northern tribes of Israel – deported the ruling elite:
The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian monarchs, Tiglath-Pileser III (Pul) and Shalmaneser V. The later Assyrian rulers Sargon II and his son and successor, Sennacherib, were responsible for finishing the twenty-year demise of Israel’s northern ten-tribe kingdom, although they did not overtake the Southern Kingdom. Jerusalem was besieged, but not taken. The tribes forcibly resettled by Assyria later became known as the Ten Lost Tribes. … READ ENTIRE HISTORY (Assyrian captivity; Wikipedia; page was last edited 7/15/17 18:04)
As to your accusation against Conservatives: “… the religious right’s political support and beliefs are about cutting/eliminating social programs that have successfully helped the elderly, disabled, poor and hungry; and they distrust and do not want to “share” America’s abundance of food and wealth or offer protection and refuge to refugees and immigrants”.
That is a load of hogwash. Cutting social programs is not the aim of Conservatives, rather ending fraud and waste inherent in the slave-making version of social programs. The religious right is highly involved in food for the poor and elderly without taxpayer dollars. The disabled will not have benefits cut and more than likely under Conservative management will have better access to effective healthcare rather than the bureaucratic delays and mismanagement occurring under Leftist management. AND your linkage of the poor and elderly in ancient Judah had no connection to the context Ezekiel made pertaining to Sodomites.
Ezekiel 16:49 ► Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. [They were Republican, right-wing conservative Christians].
Debbs a truer statement the “sister Sodom” was Dem Party Left-Wing morally depraved Secular Humanists
There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
[Again, right wing conservatives, Donald Trump. Paul Ryan and Mitch Mcconnell]
Again, a better moral equivalence is the Left-Wing Dems like the corrupt Obama, Crooked Hillary, Loretta Lynch, other Obamaites and the lying Fake News Media.
My Republican Christian mother woke up in 2016 and was disgusted by all of the blatant lies, the hate, the racism, “religious people” ignoring their own moral standards, and her party’s determination to harm the middle class, disabled, and poor– while they give HUGE tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans and Billions in subsidies to corporations like Ford, GM, Intel, Alcoah, BofA, Exxon, Chevron, Goldman Sachs, etc. They serve corporations and only care about corporate profits- they do not serve the PEOPLE.
Your mother was lied to since most of 2016 was under the Leftist big government corrupt Obama, who taxed the crap out of the rich meaning he drove jobs to foreign nations further ruining the tax revenue to help support those bloated and often fraud-infested social programs you unwittingly serve.
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
So, every time a republican tells a lie, they should be stoned to death.
Again, the abominable lying lips are the Dems and Fake News propagandists trying to exact an unconstitutional coup against making America great rather than the empty and morally deficient such as Sodom, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Judah.
Clearly, if you look up the word “abomination” in an English dictionary, you will find that the word means “vile”, “wicked”, “wrong” and “hateful”. It is equally clear that the Bible was not written in English (but in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic). The 17th century translation of the Bible known as the King James Version (KJV) translates the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22 in this way: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” The term translated as “abomination” is the Hebrew expression תֹּועֵבָה (tō’ē’bā, a noun which may be pronounced “toevah”).
There is widespread agreement among Hebrew scholars that the word “toevah” as used in Leviticus is not, in fact, a moral term; instead, it is a cultic term which indicates “ritual uncleanness”. Any action that is said to be “toevah” is an action which requires a person to engage in ritual purification before they may come to worship. Sometimes, the term “toevah” can be used in the Bible to refer simply to sinful behaviour in general, but in the case of the text in question, scholars agree that ritual uncleanness is implied.
Debbs since you insist on using a theological revisionist evaluation of “abomination” translated toevah in Hebrew, I will use the respected and much touted Biblical lexicon (except among theological revisionists) called Strong’s Concordance (Make sure to click “Read More”):
it is abomination
something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol — abominable (custom, thing), abomination. (Leviticus 18:22; BibleHub.com)
Did you see the word “morally”?
Skip Moen has an interesting take on “toevah”:
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence. Leviticus 18:22 JPS [Blog Editor: Jewish Publication Society of America Version]
Abhorrence – When it comes to the Hebrew word to’evah (abomination, abhorrence), most discussions move immediately to this verse. Why? Because homosexuality is such a hot political/religious topic. The incendiary comments on both sides offer plenty of garbage and confusion. But little progress can be made without first understanding the framework and intention of the biblical concept of to’evot (plural). After you have digested what we will discover, you might want to look at Jay Michaelson’s article claiming a mistranslation of the term (he misses the point of to’evot because he stands outside the culture).
To’evot are prohibitions within the cultural framework of Israel. What is an abomination for those in the household of Israel is what God calls an abomination, period. It doesn’t matter what the other nations do or what other arguments suggest. If you are part of Israel, the things God calls abominations are prohibited to you. Claims that other nations would not call some of these practices abhorrent are correct. Other nations have different prohibitions. But that is beside the point. As followers of YHWH, we are not held accountable to the standards of other nations. We are held accountable to the standards God sets for His nation. In fact, the biblical record specifically demands that the followers of YHWH do not live as the other nations live in all kinds of areas, not just sexual practices. With all of the contemporary fuss over homosexuality, we may overlook that fact that eating pork and forsaking the Torah are also considered to’evot. The Tanakh lists several other practices, some considered perfectly acceptable in contemporary society, as abominations. This should help us realize that we are not dealing with universalized human mores. We are dealing with what God expects of His people. And God expects that His people will not eat certain things, will not worship in certain ways, will not make certain vows and will not engage in certain sexual practices even if the rest of the world does so. In other words, to’evot are marks of distinctive difference; the difference in behavior that accompanies being a citizen of the Kingdom.
Let’s set aside the claim that some people are born with homosexual proclivities. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. The biblical issue with homosexuality is not about DNA, cultural mores or legality. It is about identification with the tribe of Abraham. Just as the tribe of Abraham is distinguished by its dietary restrictions, so it is distinguished by its sexual restrictions. If you want to belong to the tribe, you live by the rules of the tribe. You can live by other rules, but you won’t belong to the tribe. You will belong to the “nations.” You decide. It’s still a choice. It has always been a choice. Of course, living by the mores of the nations ultimately means death, but that has always been the choice too. (Stepping In It – Rewind; By Skip Moen; SkipMoen.com; 11/17/16)
Moen’s assessment is that the Law of Moses is linked only to the Jews. His view is the Law has no applicability to people outside the covenant between God and Abraham. And he is correct. Except for one principle that makes people outside of God’s Promises to the Jews engrafted into a covenant. Ephesians 2: 11-18 tells how Jew and Gentile can be one through Jesus Christ. But for brevity read this portion:
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise …
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two …
Thus as I said, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God making the practice extremely immoral.
Thus, according to the same book of the Bible, eating pork is also said to be “toevah” (unclean). According to Leviticus 11:10, as rendered in the KJV, “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.” This means that eating squid, prawns, lobsters and other shellfish is “toevah”. Similarly, according to this ancient text, any man who has sex with a menstruating woman has committed toevah (see Leviticus 20:18). [Blog Editor: I’m not Jewish but on a personal level I agree with the Bible – That is some nasty sex] And any person who commits toevah within ancient Israel could not join the community in its acts of worship until they had been ritually purified.
Answered with a combination of Skip Moen and Ephesians 2: 11-18 above.
Few today would regard shellfood [sic – she means shellfish] restaurants as abominations; not would most regard eating pork as an unclean act; and I don’t know anyone who believes a man has corrupted himself in any way by having sex with his wife during her menstrual cycle [Ibid. (grammar citation for dummies)]. Some may say that homosexuality is different, since the book of Leviticus also calls for the execution of those men who are found to have had sex with other men. But the Old Testament texts in question sanction the death penalty in all kinds of cases. The text tells us that a child (no age specified) who repeatedly disobeys his or her parents may be executed [ibid.]. The act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death. And even having sex with a menstruating woman is worthy of death, according to this ancient body of literature (see Leviticus 20:18; Ezekiel 18:13, and many other texts to that effect). Who today regards any of these acts as unclean or meriting execution? [At least as far as Christians are concerned: Ibid.]
All of which brings us to a more central question. Why does the book of Leviticus describe sex between two men as “toevah”? Many people offer may answers to that question, and many of those answers have been aired recently on radio and elsewhere. But one possible explanation I haven’t heard outlined should be added to the mix. It is suggested by (amongst others) Rabbi Arthur Waskow (see his article: “Homosexuality and Torah Thought” [Blog Editor: Same author but similar title, “Emerging Torah of Same-Sex Marriage”]). He argues that the text of Leviticus itself reflects the world in which it was written, and this ancient world was a culture dominated by men which subordinated women [Blog Editor: A typical Leftist perspective of ignoring the origin in favor of present Leftist mandated cultural acceptance of man-made norms over the Creator]. This was a culture in which righteous men prayed daily giving thanks that they were not created female. Those who wrote this text would have regarded men having sex together as tantamount to one man playing (what was considered) a culturally inferior role (that of a woman) during sex [Blog Editor: Or men and women accepted the ordinance of God in their Jewish culture as mandated by the Law of Moses]. This would make a man less than a man, since he was making himself comparable to a woman. This would also explain why sex between two lesbians is not condemned in the Old Testament, since all women were thought to be of such inferior status that “neither would be seen as adopting a dominant or a subservient role during sexual encounters” [Blog Editor: OR culturally the women assumed what was good for the goose was good for the gander. Thus, the mandate for males would be presumed the same for females in a Jewish cultural setting honoring obedience to God’s Word].
Debbs is big with saying many theologians agree with her Left-Wing perspective of revised theology. When citing Rabbi Arthur Waskow she precedes his name in parenthesis the phrase “amongst others”. If the “amongst others” are of the same metal as her cited Rabbi let’s look at his theological credentials:
Arthur Ocean Waskow (born Arthur I. Waskow; 1933) is an American author, political activist, and rabbi associated with the Jewish Renewal movement. … READ THE REST OF WASKOW’S LEFTIST AFFILIATIONS AT WIKIPEDIA
My God, Waskow changed his middle name to “Ocean” probably due to the Marxist Globalist Green Movement of Climate Change (formerly called debunked Global Warming because the ice caps still exist and the East and West Coasts are not submerged by water).
Let’s examine just how revisionist the Jewish Renewal Movement is. This from a Jerusalem Post article that seems more favorable than critical. The JPost article is based on an interview with Rabbi i David Ingber of Romemu located in New York City (Manhattan):
On its website, Romemu describes itself as “attempting to transform the way Judaism is practiced and experienced by infusing aspects of Eastern spiritual practices with traditional Orthodox influences, so the ta’am, or taste, is unmistakably Jewish.”
Besides incorporating moments of meditation and early Saturday morning yoga, Romemu’s services are filled with music and Jewish chants in which the fully egalitarian congregation takes part, and to which it even dances or claps, as the mood strikes.
Several instruments are used each week, including a piano, darbuka drums, guitars and, on occasion, a double bass.
But the main characteristic of the Friday night and Saturday morning ceremonies, Ingber explained, is that the liturgy and traditional Jewish texts are made more accessible by juxtaposing Hebrew and English; focusing on less, but fully exploring prayers; and connecting texts with their meaning in modern times.
Romemu subscribes to a fairly recent approach to Judaism known as Jewish renewal, based on deep textual knowledge and a need to make the liturgy more accessible and relevant. (JEWISH RENEWAL: EXPERIMENTAL OR ESTABLISHED MOVEMENT? By DANIELLE ZIRI; Jerusalem Post; 12/26/16 01:51)
The key words and/or phrases that connect Jewish Renewal to a revisionist Judaism are: Eastern spiritual practices, modern times, fairly recent approach and relevant. All words justifying paths to replace the Creator with a human vision of spiritual reality. The same human attitudes that destroyed Sodom, the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. When humans defy God, God withdraws His protective Hand.
These are the kinds of issues being debated by scholars [Blog Editor: as in revisionist scholars] of the Hebrew Bible, and their considerations should be included in our continuing public debate about the use of an ancient text in the 21st century. [Blog Editor: I say NO to human revisionism and YES to the will of the Creator!] There is much more to be said, of course [Blog Editor: More said to stop revisionism against God’s Word] — and this post does not consider, for example, the New Testament passages concerning same-sex sexual intercourse [Blog Editor: Probably because they are more specific about homosexuality and Redemption from the penalty of the Law]. Nevertheless, if the Bible is going to be drawn into public debates about controversial social and moral issues, we can surely all agree that it is important to try to do justice to what the Bible actually says.
Doing “justice” is another Socialist/Marxist/Leftist synonym for transforming society into Leftist Secular Humanism in order to disregard that which God calls Holy and replacing with that which is human carnality.
Please Support NCCR