“‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people"
Leviticus 20:18 NIV
G. Thomas Hobson (Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO) has written a 74 page study to demonstrate that this kareth commandment does not mean death sentence but rather expulsion from the people of Israel.
"CUT OFF FROM (ONE’S) PEOPLE”: PUNITIVE EXPULSION IN THE TORAH AND IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
The paper is not a theoretical study of the law on sexual purity in Leviticus but participation on the ongoing discussion on homosexuality. The basic hermeneutic idea is that there are several categories of punishments in the Old Testament and this distinction is critical for our Christian morals and ethics. So the "minor" sin of sleeping with a woman during her time of menstruation ("sickness" in King James Version) deserves only expulsion while homosexual act deserves death.
The distinction in the severity of the law is used to show the commandments in Torah that are still binding also in the New testament as "moral principles".
In contemporary ethical debate, it is common to hear commands from the Torah being indiscriminately lumped together: “The Torah forbids homosexual behavior, but it also forbids wearing mixed fabric, and eating leavened bread during Passover.” Those who make such an argument wish to construe all three of these Torah commands as being of equal seriousness.The first prohibition carries a death penalty, the second carries no explicit penalty, and the third calls for the offender to be “cut off from his/her people” (known in Judaism as the kareth penalty). Such a wholesale mixture of texts is not a legitimate way to characterize the intent of the Torah’s teaching, because it inappropriately ignores distinctions in Israelite law that are clearly signaled in the text itself.
Hobson op cit. p.1
Hobson studies the concept of kareth carefully and provides a good bibliography on the subject. He reaches the following conclusions:
The conclusion of this paper is that kareth is an expression of relative mercy, which preserves the possibility of repentance. It also removes a source of ongoing moral contamination from the community that puts the community at risk. Kareth is the equivalent of a life sentence in a prison without bars.
The conclusion that kareth is a form of punitive expulsion makes more sense out of the data than the theory that kareth is a divine extermination curse, for which there is no evidence as a threatened penalty in the legal provisions of any ancient Near Eastern law code.
Hobson op cit p. 68
Three themes in the study
We can notice in the above quotes at least three basic themes in Hobson's study
- There are different levels in the Law of Moses concerning sexual ethics and family relationships. Sex during menstruation - even between husband and wife - is forbidden on the threat of expulsion and not of death sentence. (While homosexual act is forbidden on the pain of death and this is confirmed in the New Testament. See the quote below).
- The commandment forbidding sex during menstruation represents "relative mercy".
- Comparative study shows that sexual act during menstruation is not cause of death in any known law code from the ancient Near East
- Sex during menstruation is forbidden on the pain of death because the man, even if he is the husband of the woman, reveals the source of blod. This commandment is not about sex but about blood, which is tabu.
- The law of Moses explicitly forbids "relative mercy" when it sentences to amputation of hand a woman who during a fight defends her husband and touches the genitals of his enemy. (No pity - off with her hand!) IMHO Hobson brings here "strange fire" from modern Western ethics to the furious Law of Moses beside which even the Islamic Sharia law pales in severity and which killed Christ.
- Torah contains also many other prohibitions and commandments that do not have parallels in other codes of law known from the Near East.
Interpretaing Laws of Moses according to Hobson
A consistent Biblical ethic G. Thomas Hobson, Ph. D.
Hobson is a PCUSA pastor and adjunct professor at Morthland College in IL.
Hobson carefully explains the link between OT interpretation of the Law and the NT interpretation. Hobson writes, "In contemporary ethical debate, it is common to hear commands from the Bible being indiscriminately lumped together. We hear people say, “The Torah forbids homosexual behavior, but it also forbids wearing mixed fabric, and eating leavened bread during Passover. It’s all a hopeless jumble, useless as any reliable source of ethical guidance.”
Many are those who claim that the Bible teaches no consistent sexual ethic, but endorses polygamy, concubinage, prostitution, and even incest." He continues, "Every Torah command that carries a death penalty, is reaffirmed by the NT as a binding moral principle. The NT does not command us to execute incorrigible teenagers, but it does affirm the command, “Honor yourfather and mother.” Commands in the Torah that do not carry a death penalty, such as the kosher food laws, are not reaffirmed in the NT, and may be taken as commands that are just for Israel."
Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry: Theology matters (link)
The quote provides a key to Hobson's hermeneutics. He emphasizes that the Law of Moses contains lesser sins and sins that are dead serious. Every deadly sin in the Old Testament is confirmed in the New Testament as a "moral principle". This hermeneutic key provides Hobson with a bridge from the Mosaic Law to the world of New Testament and thus to modern Christianity. Torah is in this way in force and universally valid also to non-Jewish people. We can therefore condemn homosexuality on the basis of the Bible which demands death to those who do homosexual acts. On the other hand, sleeping with a woman during her menstruation is a lesser sin that does not need to be regarded at all with the same severity in modern day Christian teaching.
Apostle Paul
The question of Torah was extremely important to Apostle Paul, himself a former Pharisee and student of the famed Rabbi Gamaliel the Elder. He himself had used the Laws of Moses to persecute and exterminate followers of the Nazarene - Cursed is anyone hanged on a tree!
In comparison to Paul, the hermeneutics of Hobson seems to me to be based on over-simplistic reading of the Torah, pragmatic rationalism and is mixed with an underlying agenda on sexual ethics and politics. Such an approach is not helpful in understanding the Word of God properly.
For the great message of the Bible to humanity, Jews, Greeks and pagans alike
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth
Romans 10:4 KJV
"I beg to differ..."
The following blog post by ez duz it may help us better to understand the generic framework within which T.G. Hobson works with Jewish law and Christian ethics.
Just a few reflections from a quiet, middle-aged teacher and Gay activist who also posts comments on “The Huffington Post” under the same name. Monday, April 25, 2011
G Thomas Hobson: His Anti-Gay Rhetoric and Misuse of Ἀσέλγεια Relative to Jewish Mishna
ez duz it
No comments:
Post a Comment