Bending the Word – Rewind
If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. Leviticus 20:17 ESV
Disgrace – Would you be surprised to discover that the word translated “disgrace” is hesed? That’s right, hesed, the same word for faithful loyalty, voluntary obligation and reciprocity. Hesed is a fundamental term for God’s character and covenant. But here it takes on almost the exact opposite meaning. How can this be?
Lexicons like TWOT suggest that there are two separate roots, one involving faithful loyalty and the other involving shame and reproach. But the second root fits only two verses in Scripture, Leviticus 20:17 and Proverbs 14:34. While the text in Proverbs is general (“sin is a shame to any people”), the Leviticus passage is quite specific. The sin that brings shame is overstepping sexual boundaries. Zornberg writes, “It is not etymological coincidence that incest and other sexual taboos are called hesed.”[1] Zornberg goes on to point out that there is a direct connection between the collapse of sexual boundaries and the indiscriminate judgment of God that sweeps away both the wicked and the righteous (e.g., the flood). When hesed is bent just enough to convert exclusive mutual obligation into sexual self-satisfaction, the fundamental core of hesed is corrupted even though the outward expression appears the same. Sex without boundaries produces judgment, and judgment falls on both the wicked and the righteous. Always.
Let’s put this another way. God expresses His love within the context of hesed. That means that the paradigm of love is found in exclusive, faithful, voluntary loyalty toward another. Love is the expression of care, concern and costly benevolence for the well-being of the other. In this context, sexual intimacy is not taking. It is not possessing another. Rather, it is openness without second agendas, without thought of personal gain. It is vulnerability cherished in exclusivity. But when the external behavior of sexual intimacy is substituted for the exclusive loyalty of its inner nature, there is a false appearance of hesed. The core of exclusive, faithful, voluntary loyalty is replaced with acquisition of pleasure or satisfaction of curiosity or the will to power. When this happens, what should have been faithful commitment becomes something else. Mutual loyalty that honors God is corrupted, not erased. It is bent to serve a different purpose. Scripture tells us that when a society reaches the point where exclusivity in this deepest expression of loyal commitment is lost, extinction follows. It is as if God will no longer tolerate the insult to hesed. He determines to wipe the idolaters off the face of the earth in order to re-establish the proper sense and respect for this most fundamental concept – faithful loyalty.
How can hesed be translated “disgrace” or “shame”? Because disgrace and shame are the result of using relationships rather than treasuring them. Such actions insult and humiliate God Himself. Do you think that such a God will withhold His jealous rage over insults to His own character and creation? Ask the generation of Noah.
By the way, did you notice that the waters are rising again?
Topical Index: hesed, shame, disgrace, Leviticus 20:17, Zornberg
[1] Avivah Zornberg, The Beginning of Desire, p. 51.
And we would be shocked to know how much molestation and rape has gone on especially in our inner-cities. As a result, there are no boundaries (and when you’re poor and in survival mode, you’re afraid to put down boundaries in case you need others help – which you will need most likely), and kids are put in so many situations, not of their own making. The amount of mental and emotional problems are off the chart and many don’t want to be bothered with what it really takes to turn this around. It requires much of our time in building mutual relationships of trust (with no agendas of control), which don’t fit with the current narrative of “getting people to pray prayers.”
If the one side of “hesed” got us here, it’s going to take us doing the other side of “hesed” to bring us back! Thanks for this insight Skip.
If it weren’t for God not lifting His hand off of us, we would implode. Please God, give us a chance to return to you as a nation. Please turn us to YOU!
Hi Dana,
I have a good friend who grew up in poverty in a small town and my friend was sexually abused by several family members. Yes, these violations have far reaching consequences and long term impact. Support groups that provide safe places to share are a great place to heal. We need more of these.
Hi Skip, This is off topic, but what is the Hebrew word for demon. And have you written anything about those passages where Jesus is casting out demons or where it says the demons recognized Him. If not maybe you could recommend some books about this as well.
There is almost NO information or references to demons in the Tanakh. The idea doesn’t really develop until the rabbinic period, but obviously it was popular during the first century. See this comment from TDNT
B. The OT and Later Jewish View of Demons.
1. Belief in Spirits and Demons in the OT. Traces of a belief in spirits occur in the OT in 1 Sam. 28:13 (the witch of Endor) and Is. 8:19. But those who conjured up the dead were to be expelled (Dt. 18:10; 1 Sam. 15:23a; cf. Num. 23:23). Thus the demonic appears only on the margin. Spirits are mentioned to depict the destruction of Babylon and Edom (cf. Is. 34:14; 13:21). Spirits are possibly linked to idolatry in Dt. 32:17; 2 Chr. 11:17. Only once in Ps. 91:6 LXX is there a possible reference to protection against demons. A special word ángelos replaces daímōn for God’s messengers, and God himself is the source of all that happens, including retributive or educative evils. In the main the LXX uses daimónion for Heb. šēḏ, but can also use eídōlon and mátaia as equivalents, thus showing that daimónion is a contemptuous term for pagan gods. Tob. 6:8ff. offers an example of an evil spirit attacking and destroying humans. But daimónia rather than daímones is preferred for such spirits, perhaps because it is closer to popular belief and avoids the positive aspects of daímōn.
2. Tannaitic Judaism. Here we find a widespread belief in spirits, many of which are named, e.g., Lilith, Bath Chorin; also group names. They have wings and enjoy special knowledge but have sensual needs. Magicians contact them. As spirits of defilement they are in complete antithesis to the Holy Spirit. They are ubiquitous and harmful, and precautions must be taken to avoid them (e.g., at night or in ruined places). They also cause sickness and acts as seducers. They are not connected with Satan. God and his angels can protect against them, as can study of the law, but external precautions are also to be taken. Unlike angels, they are not God’s intermediaries, but angels could become hostile demonic powers and there can thus be reference to the angels of Satan in a historical fusion that does not erase the fundamental distinction between angels and demons.
Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (138–139). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
Thank you for the information.
Interesting. Particularly the distinction between demons (spirits?) and fallen angels. I have been wondering if a “spirit of fear” 2Tim. 1:7 (which is NOT from God) is more of a function of manifestation: i.e. can be ‘created’ by choice. The closest I can find to contrast/compare for the purposes if defining such a condition is in Romans 8:15, where “spirit of bondage” is opposed to ‘spirit of adoption”. Are these conditions of the heart in which we become able ( through what we choose to believe) to manifest the one reality or the other?
Hello Skip and Others,
The wrongful application of hesed is substitution and focused on self. Those who make the choice daily, and during the day to observe faithful loyalty, voluntary obligation and exercise God-given reciprocity are fighting a cultural tide that longs for substitution. I think “The Serenity Prayer bodes well here:
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. Amen
David R
Believing the Word
Hesed is a covenant word. Hesed is a blood-covenant word. Hesed is translated as “loving kindnesss” or loving kindnesses. The “sure mercies” of David!! ~ And David said: ‘Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness (chesed – lovingkindess) for Jonathan’s sake?’ ~ (2 Samuel 9.1)
David and Jonathan entered into a blood-covenant relationship, one with another. They were blood-covenant “friends,” — a friend that is closer than a (milk) brother (or share the same mother).
Is this covenant relationship, (Marriage also is a covenant!) everything that one has belongs to the other. Everything.
Now we may review again this verse.. “If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, (chesed) and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity.” Leviticus 20:17 ESV
There is One who bears our sins. Our sin-bearer. But not only has He taken our sins upon Himself, but our sorrows and our shame as well!! Everything we have belongs to Him! And everything He has, – belongs to us!! (Yes, we certainly did get the better end of the deal!) Truly, there’s not a Friend like the lowly Jesus. No, not one! No, not one!
The Essence of Chesed, NISHMA Update, December 1990, I address the fact that we must not find fulfilment in charitable work for this would make the existence of people in need necessary for us. When there is a need, we must respond but we must ultimately wish there to be no people in need — thus we must not have a lifestyle and an understanding of righteousness that needs someone to benefit from our chesed. (Amein) Chesed represents inequality. We must strive for equality.
This must demand of us, with every act of chesed that we examine the entire picture. The most obvious question is: whether, through our acceptance of greater obligations, we are allowing others to avoid their basic responsibilities? Is this acceptable or justifiable? There are times when we must carry an extra weight. There are times, though, when we must recognize our own needs and demand from others simply because the other person must also develop sensitivity and the recognition of another. (Amein!)
Often the one who, in praise, claims that he/she never takes, only gives, not only is one who basks in the inequality but also cannot receive musar. Their chesed actually is a manifestation of their own self-aggrandizement; they need to give for their own ego. Indeed, chesed has its place — and its unique standard cannot be lost for us. It is a standard for which we must also strive. But chesed also presents a challenge by its very nature — and it is a challenge of which we must be aware, for chesed inherently can have its dark side.
The taker must be taught not always to take; to eventually stand on his/her own to the greatest possible extent. The giver must also be taught not only to give, not only to attain fulfilment in giving for this can result in a need for the inequality, the need for weakness in others. The giver, in fact, must be taught to sometimes take so that the other may have self-dignity and also be allowed to contribute
Sexuality must exist between equals who neither only give nor only take but share their existence in balance. – Rabbi Benjamin Hecht
“How can hesed be translated “disgrace” or “shame”? Because disgrace and shame are the result of using relationships rather than treasuring them.”
Personally, I find such abuse deceitful and wicked.
Thanks, Skip for such clarity of defining chesed.
How about a look closer at myself – do I cater for insurance coverage or YHVH strong right hand to care for my now and here forgetting about all the possibilities in our tomorrows… Matt 6.