Bending the Word
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
Excellent article! Is the a way to share it on facebook?
I can post it to my Facebook page, or you can post a link to it on your Facebook page.
A shorthand definition for Hesed that I have used for over thirty years is “a stubborn determination to remain faithful in a relationship no matter what the cost.” With regard to God’s hesed toward us, it is easy to see that He was willing to pay the ultimate cost to stay in relationship to his people – to you and me. In this little definition, one could substitute “in unity” for the word “faithful.” So hesed would be “a stubborn determination to remain in unity in a relationship not matter what the cost.” Changing faithful to unity gets at the real problem in the Leviticus 20 passage. It suggest sexual unity which of course would be anathema between brother and sister.
Thank you Skip. A great revelation of the intimacy of marriage just as I expressed it in “Life Is Sexually Transmitted – Why Marriage Is All About Cleaving.”
Excellent word, Skip!
Sheni (y) – the folding over.
I’ve been finding this concept more and more everywhere in scripture, especially in regards to the temple and it’s articles. Sometimes it almost makes me weak with fear for the people of God.
I have no clue what you’r saying here Skip. It makes no sense to me still, even if the proper relationship is altered, why not use a different word?
The point is that Scripture does NOT use a different word when a different word would be most appropriate. Why doesn’t Scripture change the word? Because using the word hesed points out that even when there is outward similarity in the supposed relationship, the inner core of the relationship is absent. Therefore, Scripture shows us that the claim of relationship, even the behavior of an outward appearance, is INSUFFICIENT for the actual meaning of the term. Scripture portrays this false appearance in the most graphic of circumstances – sexual immorality. But we are then supposed to apply the lesson to all other uses of hesed, and what we see is that ritual behavior, claims of fidelity, creeds and confessions mean nothing unless they are the expressions of the inner core of hesed.
Does this help?
Extracts from The Evil of Chesed
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.
One of the beauties of balance is that it does project the equality of existence. Perhaps one of Torah’s main challenges to a priestly sect devoted solely to the needs of others is that it does project inequality. 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.
Placing chesed as the ideal can also tragically blind us. The old joke about the boy scout who walked the old lady across the street even though she did not want to go is, unfortunately, not as imaginary as one may think. There are those who attempt to find problems to solve — to do chesed when there is really no need — because they need to be the giver. They bask in the inequality. Do they also not see the shame they bring to the other in always giving, always maintaining the inequality with themselves always in the superior mode?”
This reminds me of the Hebrew alephbet- ג gimel and דְ dalet. Gimel gives, and dalet receives, but gimel gives without shaming dalet, as his back is turned from gimel. So, dalet does not know gimel is helping him. Interesting!