|
Types of sin, as defined by the Mosaic Code in the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament)
Sponsored link.
About the Pentateuch:
The Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the
Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). It contains 613 injunctions "248 were
positive; 365 were negative." 1
This list, commonly called the Laws of Moses or the Mosaic Code,
describes activities that were either compulsory or prohibited to all Hebrews in
ancient times. Similar laws appeared in legal codes found in other areas of the
world before and since the Mosaic Code was written. They were supported by many
of the world's religions at the time. Many are still promoted today.
Theologians differ as to the source and degree
authority of the Pentateuch and its Mosaic Code.
 | Many religious conservatives consider the books to have been written by
Moses, circa 1450 BCE. They believe that the books are
unique within world literature. Its author was
inspired by God to write material that was completely
inerrant -- free of error. For this reason, they
often refer to the Pentateuch, and to the rest of the Bible, as the "Word
of God." |
| Many mainline and most liberal theologians look upon the Pentateuch as a
very human historical document written by many authors, each of whom was
promoting their own religious and spiritual beliefs. These theologians have
generally rejected Moses as the author. They have accepted the
documentary hypothesis, which attributes
authorship to four anonymous authors or groups of writers, who lived between
922 and 587 BCE, and held conflicting religious
beliefs. Author and theologian R.E. Friedmann
suspects that Ezra was the redactor 2
-- the individual who merged the four documents into a collection which
closely resembles the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures as we know
them today. |
Almost everyone will agree that certain parts of the Hebrew Scriptures are no
longer applicable today. Examples are those requiring the
stoning of non-virgin brides to death, or regulating how violently a slave owner
can act when beating his slaves to death. Almost everyone will agree that
other parts of the Pentateuch are of universal significance. The prohibition of
murder and adultery are two prime examples. However, there are certain
behavioral laws in the Pentateuch about which people cannot agree concerning
their relevance today.
Since conservative, mainline and liberal theologians start with such
different foundational beliefs about the origin of the Pentateuch and its laws,
they often reach very different conclusions about their significance in today's
cultures. This is particularly true of passages which deal with two types of
evil.
Human evil in the Pentateuch:
"The Mosaic code itself contained dietary regulations, clothing
specifications, etc. – a plethora of civil, social, and religious minutia."
1 A main purpose of the
Code was to eliminate or control human evil among the Hebrews.
Author and theologian Dan O. Via defines human evil, within in ancient
Israel, as: "...conditions and acts that are against God, create distance
from the divine, and injure the human subjects."
3 He, and many other theologians
and commentators, have identified two distinct types of evil within the Hebrew
Scriptures:
- Moral sin: This is: "...a conscious, intentional, personal
attitude and act. It originates in a corrupted heart, the seat of the will
and understanding. It is religious, rebellion against God." He cites
Genesis 3:1-7; Isaiah 1:2-5; and Jeremiah 5:23, 7:13-14, 13:10, 17:1, and
17:9-10. He also cites Amos 4:1, 5:11-12, and 6:4-6 as an indication that "Since
the God of Israel wills that the poor and marginalized be treated with
justice and concern, rebellion against God is also an offence against one's
human community." 3
This is close to the concept of moral sin that most present-day Christians
believe. (This web site describes morality and ethics
in a separate section.)
- Uncleanness (or impurity, ritual impurity, ceremonial unclean):
This second form of sin is caused by coming into contact with some forbidden
object or by engaging in some prohibited activity. Dr. Via describes it as
becoming involved with "...certain animals or foods, corpses, pagan
rites, sexual processes, etc. It is like a contagion; it gets on you. It has
nothing to do with motive, intention, or the disposition of the heart."
3 The impurity is
immediate and automatic. In most cases, the impurity can be removed in one
or more of the following ways:
 | A ritual animal sacrifice at the temple. |
| A ritual washing of the body. |
| The passage of time. |
However, some ritual impurities are so serious that they cannot be
undone. The person must be executed in order to rid the land of pollution.
The rest of this essay will deal with this type of sin.
Sponsored link:
The cause(s) of ritual impurity:
According to Via, "there is no clear theory about" why these
objects or activities are considered polluting, and were believed to cause
ritual impurity. Some ideas have been suggested, but none appear to cover
all of the cases. He refers to the writings of:
- Jacob Neusner and Mary Douglas who showed that the rules were
unrelated to hygiene, dirt or aesthetics.
- Phyllis Bird and Mary Douglas who have disagreed about whether they
are related to the authors' "instinctive revulsion" towards some
objects and activities.
- Mary Douglas who suggests that the purity rules reveal the "wholeness,
completeness or perfection" of God."
3 By following these codes, the Children of Israel
can reflect the holiness of God.
Via concludes that this third option is the most promising. It appears to
give a basis for many of the injunctions.
Why do things and deeds pollute?
| They detract from the condition of the body as "a perfect,
unflawed, unblemished container:" Some examples are related to
bodily discharges, childbirth, alteration to the body, or disability.
They include:
| Giving birth to a boy made a woman unclean for seven days. She
had to go through a purification ritual for 33 additional days.
Having a girl is apparently twice as polluting. The mother is
unclean for fourteen days, and then must go through a 66 day
purification ritual. Afterwards, she would bring a yearling lamb to
the temple to be ritually sacrificed by the priest as a burnt
offering. If she could not afford a lamb, she was allowed to
substitute a turtledove or young pigeon. A turtledove or young
pigeon was also required as a sin offering. (Leviticus 12:1-8) |
| A person with an imperfection on his skin was to go to the
priest for an examination. If he met one of various criteria, the
priest judged him to be contagious. The priest pronounced him
unclean and placed him in isolation for one or more periods of seven
days. If the person was finally diagnosed with an infectious
disease, then he had to wear ripped clothes -- apparently because
leprosy and similar diseases were believed to have been a curse from
God for prior sinful behavior. He must cry out "Unclean!
Unclean!," cover the lower part of his face, and permanently
isolate himself from society. (Leviticus 13) |
| A bodily discharge, described as a "running issue" in the
King James Version, ritually polluted the person. His bed, his
saddle, and anything that he sat upon also becomes impure. He must
wash his clothes and bathe repeatedly for seven days. Finally, he
had to go to the temple and offer two turtledoves or young pigeons,
one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering. Any person
who touched him, his bed, or anything that he sat upon also
automatically became impure. (Leviticus 15:2-15) |
| A man who ejaculated, presumably due to
masturbation, must wash himself and
anything that his semen touched. Even then, he remained ritually
impure until the evening. (Leviticus 15:16-17) |
| A man and women who engaged in sexual intercourse must both wash
their bodies. They remained ritually unclean until the evening.
(Leviticus 15:18). |
| A menstruating women was automatically polluted for at least
seven days, as is anything that she sits or lies upon. Anyone who
touches her bed or anything that she sat upon is also unclean. After
her period, she had to take two suitable birds to the temple to have
them ritually sacrificed. (Leviticus 15:19-30) |
| A man who engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman who is
menstruating was considered unclean for seven days. His bed was also
polluted. (Leviticus 15:24) |
| Shaving or getting a hair cut caused ritual impurity. (Leviticus
19:27) |
| Getting a tattoo or other skin marking had the same effect.
(Leviticus 19:28), |
| Rules for priests were considerably more stringent than for the
common people. A priest must not shave their head, trim their beard,
or cut their bodies. (Leviticus 21:5). A priest cannot have a
significant disability: No man who was blind or lame; who had a
disfigured hand or foot; who was hunchbacked or a little person, who
had an eye defect, damaged testicles, etc. could be a priest.
(Leviticus 21:16-23). |
|
| Holiness required that an individual conforms "completely to
the class to which they belong."
3 The Hebrews were instructed to differentiate "...between
the unclean and the clean [animals], and between the beast that may be
eaten and the beast that may not be eaten." (Leviticus
11:47)Examples include:
| Only those land animals who have a completely divided split hoof
and who chew their cud were considered of a class suitable for human
consumption. Camels, rock badgers, rabbits, and pigs were thus
examples of unclean animals that humans must not eat, or even touch
their carcasses. (Leviticus 11: 1-8) |
| Sea creatures were a class of living things which should have
both fins and scales. Shrimp, lobsters, and any other fish without
fins or scales were considered unclean animals. (Leviticus 11:9-12) |
| Other strict rules related to birds, flying insects, animals
that move about on the ground, many of which are unclean. (Leviticus
11:9-46) |
| Sowing a field with mixed seeds was not allowed. (Leviticus
19:19) |
| Wearing clothing made from two types of textiles was forbidden.
(Leviticus 19:19) |
|
| Holiness also required that a person not engage in more than one
fundamental role:
| There is an extensive list of prohibited incestuous
relationships in Leviticus 18:6-18:
 | A person cannot be both a sexual partner and a sibling of
the same person. For example, a man cannot have sex with his
sister -- or "uncover their nakedness" as the King James
Version describes. |
| A person cannot be a sexual partner and a child of the same
person. e.g. a woman cannot have sex with her father; a man
cannot have sex with his mother. |
| A man cannot engage in sexual intercourse with both a woman
and her daughter. |
|
| A man must not have sex with his neighbor's wife, apparently
because the woman would be, at least temporarily, the property of
two men. |
|
| Sexual activity between species is forbidden:
| Cross-breeding livestock was forbidden. (Leviticus 19:19) |
| Bestiality -- a human having sex with an animal of another
species was forbidden. (Leviticus 18:23) |
|
Leviticus 18:22 - A special case?
Leviticus 18:22 appears just before the anti-bestiality passage cited
above. It, and a parallel verse in Leviticus 20:13, are two of the most
commonly used verses in the Bible to oppose homosexual behavior. The King
James Version of the Bible translates this as: "Thou shalt not lie
with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." This has been
interpreted in many ways. Some are:
| Forbidding anal intercourse between two men. |
| Prohibiting all sexual activities between two men. |
| Forbidding sex acts between two men or two women, irrespective of
the nature of their relationship. |
| Prohibiting sex between two men as part of a ritual in a Pagan
temple. |
| Forbidding two men from having sex, but only if they do it in a
woman's bed. |
| Forbidding two Hebrews from performing anal intercourse; the law had
no impact on Gentiles. |
| Forbidding anal sex because it could not result in a pregnancy. A
high birth rate was was badly needed in a nation that was constantly
being attacked by foreigners. This is not applicable today. |
Perhaps of even greater importance is that no consensus exists concerning
of what type this forbidden behavior was:
| Whether it is a moral sin. Some theologians, particularly
from the conservative wing of Christianity and Judaism take this
position. |
| Whether it is a ritually impure act. Others, particularly
religious liberals, consider this verse as part of the preceding
Holiness Code. That is, it teaches that sex between two males makes both
of them ritually impure because one partner is leaving "the class to
which they belong." 3
One man is being penetrated instead of doing the penetration;
they are adopting the role of a woman. |
One key to the proper
interpretation may be the Hebrew word "to'ebah,"
translated as "abomination" in the King James Version and "detestable"
in the New International Version. Both English words seem to imply moral
sin. However, this word was translated into the Septuagint -- the Bible used
by Jesus' disciples and the early Christians -- into
the Greek word "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the
writer(s) of Leviticus wished to refer to a moral violation, he/they
probably would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."
Another key to the puzzle is put forth by many religious conservatives.
These two verses in Leviticus are merely two out of
many Bible passages which mention homosexuality. They believe that the
others clearly condemn homosexual acts as immoral sins. Thus, it would be
more consistent to assume that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 also describe moral
failings.
The difference between these alternatives is enormous.
| If sex between two males is a moral sin, then a good case can be
made that it is still immoral today, even by same-sex couple who
went to Canada to get married. |
| If it is merely an impure act, then it might have the status as
other polluting activities, such as getting a tattoo, planting a grass
seed mixture in one's front lawn, wearing a cotton-polyester shirt,
eating shellfish, munching on some barbequed pork ribs, or eating supper
with a person who follows another religion. That is, Leviticus 18:22 may
be an old prohibition that simply does not apply today. |
References:
-
Wayne Jackson, "Some Contrasts Between the Nature of the
Mosaic System and Christianity," Christian Courier, 2001-NOV-30, at:
http://www.christiancourier.com/
-
R.E. Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible?" Harper Collins, San Francisco,
CA, (1997).
-
D.O. Via & R. A.J. Gagnon, "Homosexuality and the Bible: Two
views," Fortress Press, (2003), Page 5. Read
reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
Copyright © 2003 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2003-DEC-12
Latest update: 2003-DEC-12
Author: B.A. Robinson
| |
|
Page Translator: