Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 20:17, 19-21

17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. 

19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. 

20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 

21 And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.

Today’s verses continue with other abominable sexual relationships between near kin, but I grouped these together as the ones that were of a lesser offense, given that none of them carry a death penalty. There is being cut off, bearing one’s iniquity, and dying childless, but no execution for approaching one’s sister, aunt, stepmother, or sister-in-law. This makes sense, as none of the natural effects of these acts are as ruinous to the bloodline or the community as those mentioned earlier.

The last prohibition against taking a brother’s wife is interesting, because Ancient Israel observed Levirate marriage, in which if a man died, his widow could be married to one of his near kin, including his brother, and any children born to that union would be raised under the deceased brother’s line. It would seem that the prohibition in verse 21 is excluding that particular instance. Or…maybe not. Since any children born to this union would belong to the original husband’s clan, the brother would remain legally childless in that relationship, though the sister-in-law would not.

This brings us to the end of penalties for perverse sexual relations. It is clear that the power of giving life was sacred and closely guarded, with clear and numerous laws to preserve it for the manner that God has proscribed since the creation of Adam and Eve. It is not an evil power, but it is a power that can be used evilly. And when it is, the natural ramifications on the home, the bloodline, and the society are severe, thus the penalties associated are similarly severe.

Posted on by Abe Austin · 1 Comment

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 20:10, 13, 15, 16, 18

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. 

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 

18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

We now move into the verses prohibiting various sexual relations, much like the ones we just saw in Leviticus 18. The main difference is that this chapter includes punishments for each of these crimes. Not every punishment is the same, and so we learn which sexual relations were more egregious and we can hypothesize as to why.

This category of sin covers verses 10 through 21, and I have decided to rearrange the verses to group them by categories that stood out to me during my study. Today includes all the examples of sex with someone or something who is not a close relation. Most prohibitions have to do with those familial relationships, but there were other aberrant relationships also called out, almost all of them with a death penalty attached.

Specifically, adultery with an unrelated person, male homosexuality, and bestiality were all relationships that would result in the death of both parties. As I consider these, I see a pattern emerge. Each of these sexual acts is tended towards a sort of end or extinction. Homosexual males and people who have sex with animals cannot reproduce, their desires lead to the end of a line, not the continuation of it. Adultery can produce children, but it confuses bloodlines and dissolves the family identity. Each of these aberrant behaviors are already naturally dead acts, and assigning the penalty of death emphasizes that fact.

And then, of course, there is the example of having sex with a woman during her period. This, too, is a non-reproductive act, given that the woman’s body is incapable of fertilization at this time. Even so, the penalty for this act is not death, and that makes sense, given that the sexual union of man and woman is still of the type to reproduce, it’s just the timing that is wrong, whereas all the other acts are not even of the type to reproduce, no matter the timing.

With these laws God seems to be acknowledging a fundamental principle of the universe. It is good and life-giving to be of the type that can reproduce. Those that choose to live after the manner of extinction or act only in impotence are in transgression of their very nature. They live according to death.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 6:1-7

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;

3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:

4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,

5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.

6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:

7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.

A few days ago we started examining what I have called the “higher trespass offering,” and the offenses described for it seemed ambiguous. I mentioned in that initial post that the descriptions become much clearer in this chapter. Here we see that if an Israelite cheated something away from his neighbor, in any way, that would make him guilty of having “deceitfully gotten,” and he would remain guilty until this higher trespass offering was made.

There are many ways in which a man might be guilty of this, and the verses go at some length to describe them, but what is most important is that principle of “deceitfully gotten.” In whatever way you managed to acquire your neighbor’s possession, if it was “deceitfully gotten,” you are in the wrong.

It is interesting to note that a cost was applied to the sin itself in how the perpetrator must “add the fifth part” of the item’s value to its restoration. This is different from the laws of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” where the restitution was meant to be exactly equal to the offense. The key difference between those laws and these is that “an eye for an eye” applied to the destruction and replacement of another person’s property. In today’s case, no permanent destruction took place, so the original item could be returned without replacement. If that was the end of it, then there would be no consideration for the inconvenience to the victim or the ill-gotten benefit of the perpetrator. By telling the perpetrator to “add the fifth part,” you essentially turned the theft into a pricey loan, and the victim gets a rich return.

I have included these first seven verses with my analysis of Chapter 5 because they clearly belong with the second half of that chapter. Verse 8 begins an entirely new subject, and so ought to be considered the true beginning of the next chapter. Thus, I will take my usual intra-chapter interlude here and resume my scriptural analysis next week.

SacrificeEligible oblationStepsExplanation
Higher trespass offeringRam, moneyRestitution for taking from one’s neighbor. Possibly other special cases also.
Ram presumably slaughtered and burnedPresumably spiritual cleansing or restoration
Payment of moneyRestitution for damage and a fine
Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:1, 4

1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.

In the previous chapter we heard all the laws related to killing. These laws covered both the killing of people and of livestock, and both the intentional and the unintentional variances of each. Today’s verses now shift from killing to stealing, and there are some interesting moral lessons to be gleaned here.

The first that stands out to me is that the penalty for the deliberate theft of an animal is substantially greater than the penalty we already read for the accidental killing of an animal. It is a key moral principle that the penalty is not based only on what the outcome was (the loss of the animal), but what the underlying motivation behind that outcome were. The penalty is according to the man’s guilt more than the deprivation that was suffered.

Also, note how in the second verse it says that a thief found with the animal still alive is required to return the creature, and then one also of his own. We already heard the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and this is consistent with that. Since this man had sought to reduce his neighbor’s livestock by one, now he shall experience what it is to have one of his herd reduced by one instead.

And finally, note how the penalty is even worse if the thief has already sold the creature away, or killed it, before he is caught. Now, instead of returning the creature and being out one of his own, he must now give up four or five of his animals. I assume the significantly more severe punishment is because the thief stole with the intention to destroy. He didn’t just take from the rightful owner, he took it out to where it could not ever be given back to the owner. That is a darker sin than to have taken, but to have left the door open for remorse and restoration.