What is a Cult? A Heretic?

INTRODUCTION

Languages are funny things.  Every human language includes words that convey meaning, forms that indicate relationships between words, and rules that define the proper method for joining words and larger blocks of information together to express a concept or an idea.  To the degree that two (or more) people share the same lexicon (combination of words and meanings) and other aspects of a particular language, the concept or idea that exists in the mind of one person can be communicated more or less intact to others.  However, to the degree that the structural aspects of a language differs between speaker and audience, the idea in the mind of the speaker will not be reconstructed accurately in the mind of the audience.  This is the source for misunderstandings between people.

This fact is complicated by the fact that languages in general are profoundly fragile.  The three aspects of a language mentioned above are all learned by each individual, and they change within each individual over the course of time.  As a young child, one is primarily influenced by parents, then by peers, and finally by a combination of teachers and peers.  Because no two people have exactly the same life history, no two people have exactly the same functional lexicon or grasp of the forms and structure of a common language.  This means that the potential for miscommunication, or more likely incomplete communication, is relatively high.  Added to this fact is the tendency for meaning and/or use of terms to change over time.  One example will suffice:

The term gay had a completely positive meaning and use 100 years ago.  To day this term is almost exclusively used as a reference to homosexuals or the homosexual community.  Use in its original sense has essentially ceased in order to prevent misunderstanding.

The two terms in the title have had a similar fate.  Today both are used as technical terms with a pejorative implication, and both are used popularly with a generally negative sense.  As in the case with gay, the current meaning and use of these terms is very different from those of the terms from which they were developed.

CULT, CULTIC, etc.

This word group has had a long developmental history in English.  As currently used in popular speech, it is invariably pejorative and expresses disapproval of group practice by someone who is not part of that group.   When the term is applied to a religious group or a form of religious expression, the term often implies the following:

·      A group whose practices are controlled or governed by the interpretations of a single individual or small governing body.

·        A group whose practices diverge from those considered normative by the speaker.

·      A group whose accepted religious texts either include additional texts other than those accepted as normative or exclude some of those texts accepted as normative by the speaker.

The author of The Kingdom of the Cults wrote the following: “A cult, as I define it, is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more significant respects as to belief or practice, from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expressions of religion in our total culture.”  Now starting with these ideas, anyone could view any religious group whose forms and practices differ from what he/she approves as a cult with all of the negative implications that now go with that term.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, development of the term in English proceeded as follows:

Cult, which shares an origin with culture and cultivate, comes from the Latin cultus, a noun with meanings ranging from "tilling, cultivation" to "training or education" to "adoration." In English, cult has evolved a number of meanings following a fairly logical path. The earliest known uses of the word, recorded in the 17th century, broadly denoted "worship." From here cult came to refer to a specific branch of a religion or the rites and practices of that branch, as in "the cult of Dionysus." By the early 18th century, cult could refer to a non-religious admiration or devotion, such as to a person, idea, or fad ("the cult of success"). Finally, by the 19th century, the word came to be used of "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious."

It is worth noting that no single term in either Greek or Hebrew corresponds to the Latin term cultus.

In the broadest sense, any religious expression that I don’t like might be popularly labeled today as the manifestation of a cult.  Now, Rav Shaul (Paul) actually did address this attitude specifically in Romans chapter 14.  There he addressed differing opinions regarding foods and ‘holy’ days.  His ultimate point was that each individual can judge only what is acceptable or unacceptable for himself, but he cannot make a such a judgment for others.  God is the ultimate judge for each individual, so one person judging another on the basis of preferred practices is inappropriate.

HERESY, HERETIC, etc.

As generally used today, these terms refer to an opinion, or one who advocates an opinion, that deviates from the norm accepted by some authoritative body (or the one speaking).  Identification of heresy or a heretic depends critically on the authoritative body that defines the standards.  For example, 100 years ago a radical mastectomy was the only acceptable medical procedure for treating breast cancer.  Any doctor that disagreed was a medical heretic and might lose his license to practice medicine.  Driver, one of the editors of the BDB Hebrew Lexicon, was defrocked and declared a heretic by the Presbyterian Church because he accepted the documentary hypothesis and rejected Calvinism.  Both examples correspond to the meaning and connotations of this word group as used today.  But it was not always so.

The term originated from a Greek root that is represented by three terms in the Greek scriptures:

αίρεσις   This term appears seven times in the Greek text of the New Covenant writings (Ac 5:17, 15:5, 24:5, 24:14, 26:5, 28:22, 1Co 11:19, Gal 5:20, 2 Pet 2:1), but it does not appear in the LXX.  In earlier Greek the term is used for that which is chosen; in the above passages it generally refers to those who have adopted a particular set of opinions associated with a particular sect or faction.  The term itself is not pejorative.

αιρετίζω  This verb for occurs only in Mat 12:18.  Here the usage is completely positive -- … behold this is my son whom I have chosen….  In the LXX this verb is used to translate the Hebrew root בחר, which is the common verbal root for choose.

αιρετικός  This is an adjective form that appears only in Tit 3:10; the term does not appear in the LXX and apparently does not have an exact classical Hebrew equivalent.  The usage in Titus refers to an individual who has chosen an opinion that causes division (i.e., a factions individual).  Delitzsch’s translation uses the participle form חולק, referring to a person whose opinion results in division.  This is the closest to the modern sense of heresy.

מין  The Hebrew Bible has no term corresponding to the modern sense of heresy, but there are a fair number of references to Jewish followers of Yeshua in the Talmud.  The term מין is consistently used in reference to such Jews.  This term literally means specie or kind; the implication is that Jewish followers of Yeshua are a different kind from us (Talmudic Jews), and so the reference is always pejorative.

SUMMARY

The meanings of terms in any language can trend to be very fluid over time.  Terms that were once generally positive may become negative, and vice versa.  A term that once was in common use may drop out of a language entirely and be replaced by a term from a completely different source.  When I was studying linguistics in graduate school, we spent a lot of time dealing with etymologies.  Unfortunately, etymology is often not determinative in the use of a particular term within a particular context or time period.  Any more I resort to etymologies only to evaluate historical development of meaning or when there is no other option available.  If a translator were to transliterate the terms cultus or αίρεσις into the corresponding English word, the meaning communicated today would be completely different from the meaning intended 2000 years ago.   

A Parable -- The Wisdom of a Poor Man is Despised

INTRODUCTION

The book of Ecclesiastes uses a combination of proverbs and parables (both called lvm in biblical Hebrew) to present its argument.  The following parable presents the argument that wisdom (practical skill in living) may be more powerful that force of arms, but the advantage to the individual depends on his status in his society.

THE PARABLE (Ecc 9:13-16)

.yl;ae ayhi hl;/dg]W vm,V;h' tj'T' hm;k]j; ytiyair: hz,AμG' 13

Also this ­ I considered wisdom under the sun, and it was significant to me.

ytiyair: hz,AμG'  This expression links back to verse 9:11 as a second example of how people may not get the result that their actions or their personal merit deserve.

yl;ae ayhi hl;/dg]W     Literally: It was big to me.   The adjective could describe something that is physically big or something of great significance.

l/dG; Ël,m, h;yl,aeAab;W f[;m] HB; μyvin:a}w" hN;f'q] ry[i 14

.μylidoG] μyd“/xm] h;yl,[; hn;b;W Ht;ao bb's;w“

There was a small city with few men in it; but a great king came to it, surrounded it, and built a great siege works against it.

/tm;k]j;B] ry[ih;Ata, aWhAfL'miW μk;j; ˆKes]mi vyai Hb; ax;m;W 15

.aWhh' ˆKes]Mih' vyaih;Ata, rk'z; alo μd:a;w“

But a poor wise man was found in it in it, and he delivered the city by his shrewdness.  Yet nobody remembered that poor man.

Hb; ax;m;W The verb form is a 3ms qal perfect of axm, which is a transitive verb.  The above common translation is based on Hebrew usage in which a transitive verb with an indefinite subject is used in place of a passive form.  This usage is documented in several grammars and continues to exist in modern Hebrew, but normally the verb form is masculine plural, not singular.  If we retain the active sense of the verb, then the translation becomes 'But a poor man in it found a cunning (scheme).…'   This is the meaning that I think was intended.  One problem with this interpretation is that the words in the first clause do not follow normal word order.

μk;j; ˆKes]mi vyai This string consists of an ms noun followed by two ms adjectives.  Usually, when a noun is modified by two adjectives, the second will be joined to the first by a conjunction, so this is a relatively uncommon syntactical arrangement for Classical Hebrew.  The first adjective ˆKes]mi occurs only here in the Hebrew bible, but it is attested well in later Hebrew.  The LXX uses the term pevnhta, which refers to a person who must work for his daily bread ­ like a day laborer today.  μk;j; is  an adjective and normally translated ‘wise,’ but its range of use includes ‘shrewd, cunning.’  This understanding heightens the irony within the vignette: ‘A poor day laborer within the little city discovers some trick that delivers the city, but he is forgotten by the very people that were saved.’ 

hy:WzB] ˆKes]Mih' tm'k]h;w“ hr:WbG]mi hm;k]j; hb;/f ynia; yTir“m'a;w“ 16

.μy[im;v]ni μn;yae wyr:b;d“W

So I said, ‘Wisdom is better than might, but the wisdom of a poor man is despised, and nobody listens (attends) to his words.’

hr:WbG]mi hm;k]j; hb;/f Comparative construction – wisdom is better than might.

hy:WzB] ˆKes]Mih' tm'k]h;w“ Adversative vav.  hy:WzB] is a qal fs passive participle from hzB meaning 'be despised.'  The point within this context is that no matter how wise or skilled a person may be, his social standing within a group may determine whether his input is accepted or valued, even if that group has benefited from this wisdom.

DISCUSSION

Most people in the world today live in some sort of social hierarchy, and the relative degree of acknowledgement a person receives for his contribution to the whole is strongly influenced by his status within that hierarchy.  For example, when I worked for company that manufactured control systems for nuclear power plants, I was regularly asked to write articles for professional journals.  I did all the work, but the president, vice president, and chief engineers regularly took authorship credit.  My name was included at the end of the list only occasionally.  I ultimately was promoted to principal engineer within the company, but this practice continued until I retired.  After I retired, management asked me to continue assisting them with reports and technical analyses.  This arrangement persisted for about five years, but my name never appeared as author on any of the final reports that I produced.

This experience is directly analogous with the above parable.  When one is part of a hierarchy, everything done by an individual is credited to the top of the hierarchy.  If the results are good and beneficial, the top individuals within that of hierarchy typically take essentially all credit to themselves.  If the results are less than absolutely good, then the minions take the heat.

The Biblical View of Homosexuality

INTRODUCTION

A few weeks ago the chief Sephardic Rabbi in Jerusalem issued a statement that homosexuals could not be religious, and they should stop all forms of traditional Jewish observance.  A week or so before this a government minister asserted that homosexuals should be required to undergo therapy to change their sexual orientation.  Not surprisingly, these comments triggered a firestorm of responses from the homosexual community in Israel with calls for their resignation from public office.  The government minister has since withdrawn his statement, but the chief rabbi has not.  The rabbi’s assertion is based on the fact that according to Torah any kind of homosexual activity demands the death of the participating individuals.  I suppose that comments from the rabbi and government minister were prompted by the flurry of “Gay” Pride marches that have been and are being held in various major cities of Israel.  That being the case, it seems worthwhile to investigate what both the Hebrew Scriptures (k"nt) and the Christian Scriptures (hvdj tyrb) really have to say about homosexuality and its consequences within a community.

THE DEATH PENALTY

The hvdj tyrb does address the question of homosexuality on a few occasions, but it never commands the community of believers to impose the death penalty on anyone for any reason.  The primary reason for this fact is that at the time these books were written the authors did not consider themselves as a substitute for any kind of civil government. In contrast, the k"nt does address this question with some frequency and establishes categories under which physical death, or total destruction, are obligatory.  The major distinction to be found is the treatment of enemy combatants during a time of war versus that of Israelite citizens who have violated norms of social conduct.  The Hebrew text uses three primary verbal roots to establish the distinction: μrj, lqs, μgr.

μrj

This verbal root and its corresponding noun form have been translated in various ways, but uniformly it refers to people, animals, or things that have been set apart for total destruction.  Most commonly it was applied to the treatment of the enemies of Israel during the conduct of a war, and the term served as the expression YHWH’s judgment on a particular people or culture.  Any human or beast who was designated as μrj was to be exterminated; and in the case of animals, no part of the animal, its meat, or its hide could be used for anything.  In the case for things, they were to be burned or smashed beyond further use.  The one exception to this rule was gold, silver, and bronze vessels.  These reverted to the tabernacle/temple under the authority of the priests.  In the event that one or more individuals failed to carry out a decree of μrj, the individual(s) responsible received a death sentence for their disobedience.  However, this root is not used anywhere in the k"nt with reference to penalties for violation of social norms within the culture of ancient Israel.

lqs

This verbal root occurs 22 times in the k"nt.  The verb continues to be attested in the Aramaic of the targums and modern Hebrew but not in the Syriac of the Peshitta or most other ancient Semitic languages.  Three uses are preserved in the pages of the Hebrew bible: 1) stone to death (formal execution for cause); 2) pelt with stones (not necessarily an execution and not ordinarily expected to be fatal); clear stones from a field.  Based on this usage, stoning to death appears to have been the normal method for judicial execution, so the extent of use commanded and the method for implementation are both worth some more detailed examination. 

Ex 8:22 (8:26) Moses told pharaoh that the Israelites must go out into the wilderness to perform their sacrifice lest the Egyptians stone them because shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians.

Ex 17:4 After Pharaoh had made the burden on the people more harsh, Moses complained to YHWH that the people were about to stone him.

Ex 19:13 YHWH instructed Moses that any person or animal that went onto Mount Sinai was to be stoned to death or shot with arrows.

Ex 21:28 If an ox gored someone to death, the animal must be killed by stoning, and its meat may not be eaten.

Ex 21:29 If a person knew that his ox had a history of goring and it killed someone (a freeman), both the ox and its owner must be killed by stoning.

Ex 21:32 If an ox gores a slave to death, the owner of the ox must pay a ransom for the slave, and the ox must be killed by stoning.

Dt 13:11 (13:10) The penalty for one Israelite trying to entice other Israelites to worship any god other than YHWH was stoning to death.

Dt 17:5 The penalty for worshiping any god other that YHWH was stoning to death.

Dt 22:21 An unmarried woman who lost her virginity not due to rape while living in her father’s house must be stoned to death.

Dt 22:24 If a betrothed virgin is found having sex with another man in a city, both the man and the woman shall be stoned to death.

Josh 7:23 When Achan was caught with some of the μrj spoil from Jericho, he, all his family, and all his livestock were stoned to death.  All his possessions were also destroyed.

1Sam 30:6 After the Amalekites took the wives and possessions of David and his men, the men spoke of stoning David.

2Sam 16:6, 13 When David and his party were fleeing from Absolom, Shimei cursed and threw stones at them all and cursed David.

1K 21:10-14, 15 Jezebel contrived a plot to get Naboth stoned to death so that Ahab could take his vineyard.

Is 5:2 Removing stones from a field was one of the activities required for making a vineyard.

Is 62:10 Removing stones was part of the process for making a road.

μgr

This synonym to lqs occurs 16 times in the k"nt.  The root is attested Arabic with the same meaning and as well as a few other ancient Semitic languages with related meanings.  The root continues to exist in modern Hebrew with the same meaning.

Lev 20:2 Stoning to death was the penalty for sacrificing ones child to Molech.

Lev 20:27 Stoning to death was the penalty for being a medium or necromancer.

Lev 24:14, 16, 23 Stoning to death was the penalty for blaspheming the name of YHWH.

Nu 14:10 When Joshua and Caleb opposed the majority report of the spies, the people threatened them with stoning.

Nu 15:35, 36 A man caught gathering wood on Shabbat was stoned to death.

Dt 21:21 Stoning to death was designated penalty for a rebellious son.

Josh 7:25 When Achan was caught with some of the μrj spoil from Jericho, he, all his family, and all his livestock were stoned to death.  All his possessions were also destroyed.

1K 12:16 (12:18) After the people f the northern tribes rebelled against Rehoboam, they stoned the man in charge of the forced labor gangs to death.

Ez 16:40 One of the judgments pronounced against Judah for unfaithfulness to YHWH was stoning.

Ez 23:47 Jerusalem and Samaria are condemned to stoning to death under the prophetic names Oholah and Oholibah for unfaithfulness to YHWH.

2Ch 10:18 After the people of the northern tribes rebelled against Rehoboam, they stoned the man in charge of the forced labor gangs to death.

2Ch 24:21 The prophet Zechariah son of Jehoiada was stoned to death in the court yard of the temple.

SPECIFIC SEXUAL SINS

Leviticus 20:10-21 provides a detailed list of forbidden sexual unions and stipulates a specific penalty for all but one (Lev 20:19). 

Lev 20:10 Both the man and woman of an adulterous pair shall be put to death.

Lev 20:11 If a man has sex with his father’s wife, both shall be put to death.

Lev 20:12 If a man has sex with his daughter-in-law, both shall be put to death.

Lev 20:13 Both men of a homosexual pair shall be put to death.

Lev 20:14 If a man marries both a woman and her mother, all three shall be burned to death.

Lev 20:15 If a man commits bestiality, both the man and the animal shall be put to death.

Lev 20:16 If a woman commits bestiality, both the woman and the animal shall be put to death.

Lev 20:17 If a man marries his sister, the two shall be cut off from their people.

Lev 20:18 If a man has sex with a menstruous woman, the two shall be cut off from their people.

Lev 20:19 If a man has sex with his aunt, the two shall bear their guilt (no punishment listed).

Lev 20:20 If a man has sex with his uncle’s wife, the two shall bear their guilt; they will die childless.

Lev 20:21 If a man takes his brother’s wife, the two shall bear their guilt; they will die childless.

The first seven of these forbidden couplings all have the death penalty specified for those involved, but only Lev 20:14 indicates the required method for execution – burning.  So far as I can recall, this is the only incident in which execution by burning is commanded.  Otherwise, stoning appears to have been the normal method for execution.  In all instances of execution, it was to be conducted in public, and all members of the society were to participate.  The stated reason for this practice was to make the guilty individual(s) an object lesson and to remove that specific practice from the society.

The last four forbidden sexual practices are different with respect to the stipulated penalty:

·      Sex with a menstruous woman – The two are to be cut off from their people.  This type of penalty is specified with some frequency, but the text never spells out exactly what this entails.  As a minimum, it could imply social shunning; as a maximum, it could imply permanent exile or even execution.

·      The last three deal with an offense of a similar nature.  The first of these does not include a specific penalty as part of the verse, but the last two specifically state that the pair will remain childless throughout their lives.  The implication of this sentence is that they will have no enduring heritage in Israel.  Conceptually, this would be the opposite from eternal life.

The last item of note is that man-on-man homosexuality, man-beast, and female-beast unions are all specifically mentioned; however, female-on-female homosexuality is not mentioned.  The reason for this omission is not clear to me at present.

METHOD OF EXECUTION

The Hebrew bible does not go into detail about the method for carrying out execution by stoning.  The practice among Arabic Muslims to this day consists in burying the condemned person in a pit up to the waist.  Then the accusers were required to cast the first stones.  After that the entire local community was required to participate in throwing stones until the condemned person was dead.  Several places in the bible the text asserts that having the entire community participate in penal execution would eliminate a particular wicked conduct from the midst of that society.

HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE hvdjh   tyrb

Male and female homosexuality was quite common in the first century CE, especially among the Greeks and Romans.  I am not aware of any evidence for wide-spread instances of homosexuality within the Jewish culture of that time, but anybody who lived in close contact with Greek or Roman culture would have been confronted with all manner of sexual excess with regularity.  (According to Herodotus, the ancient Egyptian culture also included a sex cult, and the sexual aspect of the Canaanite religion is well documented.)  That being the case, the hvdjh   tyrb has surprising little to say about this topic.

Rom 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.  For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

1 Cor 5:1, 2 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not even exist among Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.  And you have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who has done this deed might be removed from your midst.

1 Cor 5:9, 10 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world.

1 Cor 6:9-11a Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified….

Gal 5:19-21 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envyings, drunkenness, carousings, and things like these, of which I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Thes 4:3-5 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to keep his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God….

1 Tim 1:8-10 But we know that the Torah is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for murderers and immoral men, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching….

In Romans 1:32 Paul (Rav Shaul) writes that those who practice the kinds of wicked behavior listed above are worthy of death, but never do any of the authors of the hvdjh    tyrb command followers of Yeshua to carry out an execution.  The strongest penalty commanded is expulsion from their midst. 

CONCLUSIONS

Both the Hebrew Scriptures Hebrew Scriptures (k"nt) and the Christian Scriptures (hvdjh   tyrb) teach essentially the same message with respect to sexual conduct but from different perspectives.  The Torah was created as the record of a covenant between YHWH and the people of Israel.  As such it was to serve essentially as the constitution for the Israelite nation.  If the people were faithful to the covenant from the top leaders down to the least clan, YHWH promised abundant natural blessings and corresponding abundance in the land of their inheritance.  If the people were not faithful to their covenant in individual conduct as well as including imposing penalties on individual transgressors, YHWH promised imposition of curses ranging from famine to invasion and final expulsion from the land of inheritance.  These things all happened, and this is essentially the story of the k"nt.

The content of the moral conduct advocated by the hvdjh   tyrb was taken directly from the Torah with one major difference.  The hvdjh   tyrb was never intended to serve as the constitution of any kind of national entity.  Though Christianity spread first throughout the Roman Empire, the individual Roman provinces had all originally been national entities in their own rite; and as Rome deteriorated, they became so again.  Nowhere in the hvdjh  tyrb do the authors attempt to subvert the authority of the civil governing authorities, and nowhere do they attempt to impose the civil/judicial penalties listed in the Torah.  They knew that was not their mission and that they did not have such authority.

Now with respect to the prevalence of homosexuality in the world today, it is tempting to assert that it has always been there but it has just now become more open.  I for one do not believe that assertion.  From the standpoint of documentary evidence, there are two periods during which homosexuality in all of its manifestations became prominent: ancient Canaanite, Greek, and Roman cultures; in modern cultures, the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, and some parts of the Muslim world.  Particularly, those parts of the world that are called “the West” have begun to brag about how liberal they now are in accepting homosexual and other deviant sexual lifestyles.  Why now?  Sociologists and psychologists give one kind of answer; Rav Shaul (Paul) gave a different answer in Romans chapter 1.  According to Rav Shaul, when people within a society reject the knowledge of God as He has revealed it, God gives them over to a reprobate mind, resulting in a proliferation of everything that God had defined as evil, including the prevalence of homosexuality.

In the case of Israel, when David Ben Gurion proclaimed the formation of the state of Israel, the leaders initially considered creating a formal constitution.  In the end they decided not to create such a document and asserted that the k"nt was the constitution of Israel.  If the k"nt is the constitution of the modern state of Israel and if God's blessing on Israel is dependent on Israel's faithfulness to the covenant, then Israel has a problem.  Official Israel is not faithful to the covenant as defined by the k"nt at many levels.  Leaving aside more than half of the specific commands relating to the temple and temple ritual, most of the specific case laws in the k"nt relate to an agrarian culture.  As is the case of most developed countries, only a small percentage of the total population follow an agrarian lifestyle, so such laws cannot be applied directly in most cases.  The rabbis understood this, so they developed a whole system of conduct called halacha.  The problem with this is that halacha is not Torah but an abstraction developed from Torah, and various authorities have different opinions on specific items of halacha.  The practical difficulty is that the halacha has been developed by rabbis over the past two thousand years.  Some of the halacha laws are just as irrelevant today as the agrarian case laws in Torah, and many go far beyond anything demanded by Torah.  (This was intentional and is called 'the fence around the Torah'.)  Additionally, none of the halacha has been enacted by any national governing body.  These factors make using the halacha as the basis of national civil law generally untenable and even undesirable.  However, there are many specific laws, statutes, and judgments in Torah that are generally applicable and not subject to debate.  One example will suffice.

• Israel's jails are filled with murders, mostly Arab terrorists.  Torah demands that all murderers (Arab or otherwise) be put to death.  Under Torah any disobedience results in recompense from YHWH.  According to Rav Shaul in Romans chapter 1, apostasy from God results in social chaos, including the rise of homosexuality within a society.  Not only this, but prominent individuals boast about Israel's liberal acceptance of homosexuality.  This is not something to boast about, but it is a shameful thing.  (Note that the same sort of thing is happening throughout Europe and the United States.)

Now, returning to the chief Sephardic Rabbi’s comment, can homosexuals be religious?  It depends on what one means by “religious.”  If you mean going to shul on Shabbat, reading the Shemoneh Esrei prayers three times a day during the week, and keeping the mo’adim, anybody can do that.  The same is true for those adhering to traditions of the various Christian sects.  A male or female homosexual who has “come out” must first disregard all of the biblical passages cited above dealing with conduct forbidden by YHWH.  Does their external ritual obedience really please God?  Not according to Isaiah chapter 1.  If the heart and attitude are not in sync with personal conduct, YHWH will reject the external forms of worship even though He commanded them Himself.  That is why the prophets beginning with Moses proclaimed that God must and would circumcise their hearts.  Then and only then can heart and conduct be in sync with one another.  Only then can the command “Be holy because I YHWH am holy” become reality in people’s lives.