2 Sin in the Law. Paul R. House
PAUL R. HOUSE
The Old Testament offers the Bible’s oldest and most textured treatments of the doctrine of sin. Beginning with Adam and Eve, sin appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, acting as the main problem that God’s redemptive work solves. Sin is humanity’s chief impediment to glorifying God and enjoying him forever—the reason men and women were created, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism. It is also their most shared transcultural characteristic. The Old Testament writers do not use a single comprehensive word to describe sin akin to the New Testament’s hamartia. Rather, they depict the concept we normally deem “sin” in a variety of ways, using several concepts (see below). They relate sin’s scope by noting the damage it does to young and old persons as well as to creatures and creation. Unfailingly honest, they include themselves among sin’s practitioners. This comprehensive approach magnifies God’s saving work through the Old Testament’s promise of the Messiah and the New Testament’s declaration of the fulfillment of that pledge in Jesus of Nazareth.
Definitions and Methodology
This chapter will seek to unfold a small measure of the Old Testament’s treatment of this massive biblical concept. The compass of this theme means that some method of shaping the discussion must be chosen lest the chapter run aimlessly. Though many defensible approaches could be chosen, this essay will utilize three basic methods.
First, it will discuss Exodus 34:1–9, a seminal theological passage that provides a definition of God’s character and gives three fundamental definitions of sin. Elmer Martens uses this approach in God’s Design, where he treats a comprehensive passage (Ex. 5:22–6:8) as a foundation for discussing major ideas in Old Testament theology.1 Passages that deal with or use basic words related to sin appear earlier in the biblical text, and this essay will return to some of them after the analysis of Exodus 34, but examining a paradigmatic passage before turning to other texts introduces key terms in a representative context. This procedure has the potential to aid the understanding of both previous and subsequent texts.
Second, it will examine the concepts found in Exodus 34:1–9 as they appear in selected texts in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, the three major parts of the Old Testament. It will introduce and analyze these passages. In this way it follows the canonical method found in my Old Testament Theology and in works such as Mark Boda’s excellent monograph A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament.2 A variety of canonical approaches has been utilized over the past thirty years. These efforts have proved the flexibility and worthiness of this type of analysis.
Third, it will provide syntheses of key themes related to the doctrine of sin as they unfold in the texts chosen. Providing synthetic observations is in keeping with the methods utilized in well-known Old Testament theologies such as those by Walther Eichrodt and John Goldingay.3 The synthesis sections will at times make use of New Testament texts, which I believe have been breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:14–17) just as the Old Testament books have been (2 Pet. 1:19–21). New Testament authors also represent the oldest Christian interpretative tradition. They would be valuable for examining the Old Testament even if they were not God’s word written.
This chapter will use this proposed “multi-plex”4 approach to argue that the Old Testament defines sin as “faithless rebellion against God’s character and God’s explicit word practiced by all human beings that results in physical and spiritual death for them and damaged existence for the created order.” This definition agrees with Cornelius Plantinga’s assertion that sin “offends God not only because it bereaves or assaults God directly, as in impiety or blasphemy, but also because it bereaves and assaults what God has made.”5 As this chapter unfolds, I will attempt to keep faith with this definition by using the word sin as a comprehensive concept rather than as an individual category.
Sin is so serious and so pervasive in the world that God’s redemptive work is the only antidote for it. Due to the assigned restrictions of this chapter and to this author’s own limitations, this chapter will not deal with God’s redemptive plans in detail. Nonetheless, in the spirit of full disclosure, I write as one who believes that sin’s causes and effects have been and will be fully resolved by the incarnation, teaching, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Jesus, the Christ promised in the Old Testament. I strive not to minimize sin, in part because I honor God’s sacrificial plan for removing it.
This chapter will dwell longer on the Law than on the Prophets and the Writings because of the Law’s foundational nature. One could easily spend much more time on how the prophets denounce sin in detail. If one believes that the prophets are covenant preachers, however, then one can expect that they speak with the Torah in mind and with the context of the nation’s history in full view.
Exodus 34:1–9: God’s Character and the Definition of Sin
There are many Old Testament passages that reveal specific elements of God’s character. None is more comprehensive and allusive than Exodus 34:1–9.6 None is quoted as often in subsequent Old Testament passages. None is more thorough in its inclusion of God’s personal characteristics and their implications for human beings. The value of this text for this chapter is that it defines God as gracious, compassionate, and just, while defining sin as missing the goal of human existence, trespassing the creator’s boundaries, and twisting reality-defining truth for human beings. Later writers use this passage to deal with a variety of sin-laden situations.
Analysis
By this point in the Torah, Moses has taught readers about creation, the beginnings of sin, and Noah’s flood (Genesis 1–11), and he has described the calling and blessing of Abraham and his clan (Genesis 12–50). He has reported God’s magnificent deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Exodus 1–18) and has declared Israel’s covenant identity as God’s priests for the nations (Exodus 19). He has detailed the first relationship-based Sinai commands and case laws (Exodus 20–24) and given God’s standards for Israel’s own priests (Exodus 25–31). Sadly, Moses has also recounted the sordid tale of the golden calf incident, in which Israel breaks its commitments to Yahweh during the covenant’s first weeks of existence (Exodus 32). After sustained intercession by Moses, Yahweh agrees to begin afresh with the people (Ex. 33:1–17). This act of divine grace leads Moses to desire to know more about Yahweh (vv. 18–23). Yahweh agrees to explain more of who he is to Moses, yet he does not grant Moses’ wish to experience Yahweh’s full presence or glory (vv. 18–23).
Thus, Yahweh’s self-description in 34:1–9 comes in light of Moses’ wondering why Yahweh does what he does. Apparently, Moses has several questions. These could understandably include such queries as: What sort of God keeps covenant, delivers, punishes, and begins afresh with a people? What sort of God responds to certain types of intercession? What sort of God do I serve?
The passage recounts Yahweh’s encounter with Moses in four related parts. First, Yahweh instructs Moses in how he will receive the revelation (34:1–3). Second, Moses obeys Yahweh, appearing as ordered (vv. 4–5). Third, Yahweh states his character in relationship to human need and rebellion (vv. 6–7). Fourth, Moses bows before God and prays again for the errant Israelite people (vv. 8–9). Though every aspect of the passage carries significant theological weight, verses 6 and 7 are the most significant for understanding Yahweh’s character and the issue of human sin.
Yahweh states his own character traits in several key phrases in 34:6–7a. He is “gracious and merciful” (v. 6).7 These two conjoined terms8 reflect Yahweh’s parental kindness (see 1 Kings 3:26). They also demonstrate his tendency to show favor like that given by a kind king9 or by a person who shows kindness to the poor,10 respectively. Furthermore, he is “slow to anger and multiplies loyal covenant-type11 love and faithfulness” (Ex. 34:6). He is not quick to discipline his people, regardless of how it may seem to the Israelites. This slowness to anger amplifies his resolve to make covenants successful by always keeping his end of the relationship. Because of his determination to bring his will to fruition, he does not allow any covenant he makes to fail. His fidelity indicates that his integrity (loyal covenant-type love) and always-reliable12 truthfulness (faithfulness) pervade all his actions. Indeed, he is always in the process of “keeping loyal covenant love for thousands” (v. 7), which Deuteronomy 7:9–10 indicates most likely refers to thousands of generations.13
In Exodus 34:7b, Yahweh relates why he displays this type of character: it allows him to be ever “forgiving [or, “bearing with”] iniquity and transgression and sin.” This does not mean that he is unjust, for he “will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.” Based on Exodus 20:4–5, the successive generations referenced here “hate” Yahweh, so this text does not present Yahweh as punishing persons who have not sinned. Rather, it describes him punishing sin as long as it occurs in a clan or nation.
To explain what he is constantly “forgiving,” or “bearing with,” Yahweh mentions three specific words that help define sin in the Old Testament.14 This triad appears thirteen times in the Old Testament,15 so placing them together is a fairly common way of expressing sin’s totality. First, Yahweh forgives “iniquity” (awon). This word basically expresses the conscious twisting of a personality, idea, or thing.16 Second, he forgives “transgression” (pesa), a word that describes rebelling against Yahweh that “breaks with him, takes away what is his, robs, embezzles, misappropriates it.”17 Third, Yahweh bears with “sin,” a word that means “missing a goal” (
).18 So, Yahweh’s compassionate and merciful nature bears with and forgives people’s twisting his words and will. It endures breaches of trust by persons with whom he has a relationship and suffers the missing of the goals he sets for his people.
In context, each of these three terms must be defined over against Yahweh’s concern for and embodiment of covenant loyalty. By Exodus 34:1–9, it has become clear that he has been faithful to his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even long after they have died (see 2:23–25). He has also kept his promises to the current generation of Israelites (3:13–18). In contrast, the golden calf incident indicates that they have twisted, rebelled against, and failed to reach the covenant standards they agreed to keep to reflect their relationship with him (24:3–8). They have twisted, broken faith with, and missed the goals set by the Ten Commandments and the other teachings they received in Exodus 20:1–17. To act in this twisted, treacherous, and wayward manner constitutes what we call “sin.” They made the golden calf, declared this idol the god that brought them from Egypt, acted in a sensual manner, and generally treated Yahweh as a disposable deity (32:1–7). Yahweh has been unfailingly loyal, but the people have not. He has not chosen another people, though they have chosen to worship a god made with their own hands.
Synthesis
Exodus 34:1–9 helps make sense of what has come before it and aids an understanding of the rest of the Old Testament. Like Moses, readers of this text glean knowledge that has not been as clear previously. This knowledge includes several key elements about the nature of God and of human beings.
First, Yahweh’s character is whole, good, and true. He is patient, kind, and yet just. Some commentators find these qualities contradictory, or at least in such tension that they cannot be reconciled satisfactorily.19 Yet the multiple times that later Old Testament writers quote this passage indicate that these are the qualities of a personal deity ready for the whole range of human activity. These traits allow God the flexibility to plan and respond with grace, compassion, and justice appropriately in every circumstance.
Second, Israel has not shown this type of integrity. Their lack of reliability provides the basic definitions of sin that the Old Testament uses. This sin is fundamentally relational. Though not without redeeming qualities, Israel nonetheless demonstrates an astounding lack of personal loyalty to Yahweh, given all he has done for them. Thus, this sin is anti-covenantal. The people have not kept the standards they once agreed were reasonable. Rather, they have twisted the truth about deity by calling an image a true god. They have broken their relationship with Yahweh by choosing another object of worship. They have rebelled against the limitations that Yahweh and Israel agreed upon in Exodus 20–24. In doing so, they have missed the goal of being a special people that Yahweh will use as priests to the rest of the world.
Third, though sin is far from innocuous, it cannot defeat Yahweh. He can overcome it through forgiveness (34:1–9) or through removal of those who sin (32:25–29). Yahweh’s gracious character means that Israel has a chance for reconciliation and ongoing redemption. Sin is not the last word. Yahweh moves forward with Moses and the people. His grace is indefatigable, but so is his determination that the guilty not be cleared. These realities press readers to learn more about how God determines who is forgiven and who is punished.
The Law: Sin’s Motives and Manners
In the Law, Moses depicts many prior instances of sin that fit the definition revealed in Exodus 34:1–9. These examples show sin’s origins in human life. They explain how sin begins with faithlessness on humanity’s part born of a lack of faith in God’s character and God’s Word. They also begin to demonstrate sin’s massive infecting power in people’s lives. Though many passages deserve explication, this portion of the chapter will examine briefly Genesis 3:1–21; Exodus 20:1–17; and Numbers 14:1–19 to discuss sin’s motives, manners, and consequences. It is easy to see that the Law’s standards reflect covenant faithfulness. Commentators have rightly examined these issues in detail throughout the history of interpretation. However, it is just as important to note how the Law reveals why people sin and what that sin looks like in daily culture.20 These areas of the Law’s teachings on sin probably deserve more attention.
Genesis 3:1–21 and the Origins of Human Sin
This foundational passage reveals the roots of sin and thus of humanity’s broken relationship with Yahweh. It discloses that faithlessness begets every category of sin. Once released, sin produces many negative effects that no person avoids. This sad fact becomes increasingly apparent as the Bible proceeds.
Analysis
This text follows the magnificent account of Yahweh’s succinct, sweeping, and powerful creation of all that exists on earth and beyond in Genesis 1:1–2:3. It also comes after Yahweh’s installation of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and his instructions that they not eat of one of the garden’s trees (2:4–24). This prohibition seems to have no ill effect on the man and the woman or produce any immediate resentment in them. Rather, they live in perfect harmony with God and one another (v. 25). Elmer Martens observes that “there exists a relationship of mutual intimacy between them and God. There is no other God to whom they are tempted to give allegiance. Adam and Eve know God—he is not a stranger to them. He is described [in 3:8] as walking in the garden in the cool of the day: Creator and creature converse.”21
This brilliantly positive situation does not endure. Without prior introduction, a third character in the garden, the Serpent, asks Eve what God has said about the trees (3:1). The woman answers rightly, noting that God has stated that they must not eat from one of the trees.22 She also comments that God has warned that death is the penalty for breaking this command (vv. 2–3; see 2:17). Without hesitation, the Serpent denies that God has spoken truthfully, asserts that God does not want Eve to have the knowledge that God possesses, and promises fuller satisfaction for Eve if she will eat from the tree (3:4–5). In other words, he accuses God of lying to protect selfish interests. By doing so the Serpent attempts to break the close relationship that God, Adam, and Eve share.
Thinking it over (v. 6a), the woman chooses to believe the Serpent rather than God. She desires and then eats of the fruit. She next gives some to her husband, who follows her example. They gain new knowledge, but it does not make them feel more satisfied or wise. Indeed, it makes them ashamed of one another and fearful of God (vv. 6b–13). Their lack of faith in God’s character and their ambition for what did not belong to them lead to their disobedience of God’s word. John Calvin rightly asserts that they “never would have dared to resist God, unless they had first been incredulous of his word. And nothing allured them to covet the fruit but mad ambition. So long as they, firmly believing in God’s word, freely suffered themselves to be governed by Him, they had serene and duly regulated affections.”23 Until they ate the fruit, they knew that “to be loved by him is the consummation of a happy life.”24
This lack of faith leads to a breach in relationship between God and the man and woman. When they express their fear at meeting with God due to their nakedness, God asks the question in verse 11 that summarizes all sins past and present: “Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The answer is obvious, and no excuse suffices. Everything has changed, and death enters the picture.
Other results come in as well. God pronounces judgment on the Serpent, primarily by informing him that God will “put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (v. 15). Nahum Sarna notes that the serpent was a symbol of many positive and negative traits in the ancient world, and that “it was often worshipped.”25 Thus, he thinks God’s sentencing provides a “demythologizing” of the serpent.26 He adds, “Of the three parties to the transgression, the serpent alone is summarily sentenced without prior interrogation—a token of God’s withering disdain for it. Further, the voluble creature does not utter a word—a sure sign of its impotence in the presence of the Deity. In sum, the serpent is here reduced to an insignificant, demythologized stature.”27 Though one could disagree with Sarna’s conclusion about the serpent’s insignificance, he is correct about God’s total control of the Serpent and the situation. God states the best news possible under the circumstances: evil will not triumph. The first human source of sin will play a key role in the Serpent’s demise.
Nonetheless, the man and woman will experience pain with childbearing and presumably child rearing. They will endure pain with one another, and they will suffer pain as they attempt to grow food from the ground (vv. 16–19). Their walk with God, intimacy with one another, relationships with their children, and ability to make a living by acting as stewards of earth’s resources (see 1:26–28) are all impaired. Were it not for the promise of eventual victory over the Serpent and his product, sin, there would be little reason for Adam and Eve to wish to live. Yet they do live on, death delayed, though outside the delightful garden they have known. They can do so because God does not execute the penalty of death. Rather, he mercifully protects and aids them (3:19–21).
Synthesis
The motive and manners of sin take shape in this early passage. So do sin’s far-reaching effects. This passage begins the Old Testament’s development of sin’s pervasive nature.28 By doing so it introduces issues such as responsibility for sin, the intergenerational nature of sin, and the prevalence of sin in individual and corporate life.
This passage demonstrates that each individual is responsible for his or her actions. God made the man, the woman, and the Serpent. But he did not command the Serpent to tempt Adam and Eve. God made the fruit, but he warned the people not to eat it. Adam and Eve lacked the faith necessary to believe their Creator rather than another creature. When asked to keep a simple set of standards, the humans fail to do so. Their failure is their own. They were warned, and the Serpent hardly coerced them beyond what they could withstand.
The text also implies through the consequences outlined in 3:15–19 that sin will be an ongoing problem. Jewish and Christian scholars have argued for centuries that humans are born in sin after Adam and Eve eat the fruit. Many thinkers have also disagreed with this conclusion. Genesis 3:1–21 does not give an explicit answer to this matter, though Romans 5:12–21 strongly suggests that such is the case.29 Clearly, no human being avoids sinning afterward. No person is sinless; the world is affected negatively. By birth, by choice, or by both, the result remains the same. Every person sins, and every human suffers for that sin spiritually, physically, emotionally, relationally, and vocationally.
The rest of the Old Testament deals with sin’s prevalence and consequences in and for Israel. As will be referenced below, Moses mediates a covenant between Yahweh and Israel that defines sin and sets sacrifices for that sin. These standards reflect a proper covenant relationship with God, and the sacrifices reflect faith by penitent sinners. The Former Prophets30 sketch how long-term, habitual sin, left unchecked, brings Israel down. The Latter Prophets and the Writings do the same.31 Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve provide a consistent testimony of Israel’s need to believe God and walk with him. Lamentations, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1–2 Chronicles describe the efforts of Israel’s exiles to overcome the effects of national covenant breaking.
The Old Testament also details sin’s presence outside of Israel. As was noted above, because Adam and Eve are the first humans, sin is a universal human problem. Before there was an Israel, the Ten Commandments, and the moral laws found in Exodus—Deuteronomy, there was a worldwide sin problem outlined in Genesis 1–11. Isaiah 13–27, Jeremiah 46–51, Ezekiel 25–32, Amos 1:2–2:3, and other passages testify to sin against the creator of all peoples in lands outside Israel. The psalmists state that there are no completely sinless persons (see Pss. 14:1–3; 53:1–3; 140:3). Job and Proverbs range well beyond Israel’s borders to counsel wisdom in light of foolish sin.
In short, after Genesis 3 sin never skips a generation or an individual life. The Old Testament is not simply a long horror story of innumerable sins, but the teachings about sin are persistent and jarring. The standards warn successive generations of what can occur. No wonder, then, that in Romans 5:12–21 Paul cites this passage as a basis for arguing that one must choose between remaining “in Adam,” and thus “in sin,” or being “in Christ,” the latter of which is God’s means of forgiveness and reconciled relationship.
Exodus 20:1–21 and the Contours of Covenantal Sin
Exodus 20:1–21 contains one of the most famous of all biblical passages. It is hard to overestimate the role that the Ten Commandments have played in the history of Judaism and Christianity. As Patrick Miller asserts, “From their setting in Scripture to the contemporary debate [in the US] about their public display, the Commandments have seemed to embody God’s will for human life as fully as any particular body of teaching or Scripture.”32 Miller goes on to note that the commandments have been used in Christian catechisms, thus marking them as a special portion of Christian Scripture.33 He further notes that they have been considered a good summary of natural law, which has led to their use in a number of secular contexts.34 This notoriety is certainly deserved. The commandments cover a wide range of human behavior, and the rest of the Bible indicates that God ultimately holds all persons accountable for breaking these standards.
Because the Ten Commandments have been used in so many ways, it is important to treat this great text in the context of the whole of the Old Testament. Moses does not present these requirements to the nations; he gives them as the representative standards of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. It is then Israel’s responsibility to state and demonstrate these principles to the world as they act as Yahweh’s priests to the whole world (see Ex. 19:5–6). It is vital to emphasize the covenantal nature of the Ten Commandments before citing them as evidence of what Yahweh requires of all people. Seen this way, the commandments explain behavior that is or is not anchored in relationship with God.
Analysis
Much of the context of this passage was introduced in the comments on Exodus 34:1–9 above and will not be repeated here. Of that material it is most important to recall that Yahweh made a covenant with Abraham that includes the following blessings: his descendants will become a great nation; he will have a special relationship with God; his descendants will occupy Canaan; and his descendants will be a blessing to all nations (Gen. 12:1–9).35 This covenant is the Creator’s comprehensive response to the universal spread of sin in Genesis 1–11.36 To fulfill these promises, Yahweh has protected Israel in Egypt (Genesis 37–50) and has redeemed them from Egyptian bondage in keeping with the pledges given Abraham and his descendants (Exodus 1–18; see esp. 2:23–25). Fully freed now, Israel stands ready to become a kingdom of priests for other nations (Ex. 19:5–6; see 1 Pet. 2:9–10). As Gary Schnittjer explains, “The Sinai covenant, then, was not designed to isolate Israel from the nations but to separate them to serve and represent the nations to their God.”37 What follows, therefore, occurs to help Israel become Yahweh’s means of liberating the world from sin, a goal first stated in Genesis 3:15.
Exodus 20:1–21 may be divided several ways depending on how one handles the Ten Commandments. If one separates the commands into those that relate most directly to God and those that apply mainly to people, then the passage has four clear parts: verses 1–2; verses 3–11; verses 12–17; and verses 18–21.
Exodus 20:1–2 is critical to understanding the commandments’ role in the Bible. Here Yahweh’s relationship with Israel determines the nature of the commands. Everything Yahweh has done for Israel in Genesis 12—Exodus 19 stems from his promises to Abraham. All these crucial prefatory events stand behind this opening statement that Yahweh is their God, and he is the one who has brought them out of the land of Egypt. As in Genesis 2:4–25, relationship precedes requirements. Unlike Genesis 1–2, redemption does as well. Yahweh has already revealed and proven himself through unwavering faithfulness and overwhelmingly successful redeeming love. In short, his commandments and Israel’s projected obedience to them reflect this existing relationship; it does not create the relationship. Breaking the commands shows faithlessness in action.
In Exodus 20:3–11, the first four commands set boundaries for Israel’s faithfulness to God. Israel must have an exclusive commitment to Yahweh (v. 3). I argue throughout my Old Testament Theology that the Old Testament teaches monotheism, the belief in one God (see Deut. 4:35, 39; etc.).38 Yet even if the Israelites did not believe that there is only one God, this verse binds them to acting as if such is the case. There is no room to flee to another deity. Furthermore, they are required to serve Yahweh without making any image of him, much less bowing down to any other image of a god (Ex. 20:4). Engaging in any sort of idolatry shows hatred, which basically means an unwillingness to choose Yahweh as he desires. Consequently, Yahweh will punish idolatry even though his first instinct is to show compassion and mercy (vv. 5–6; see 34:6–7).39 What is more, the people must not swear falsely by, prophesy falsehood in, teach falsehood about, or claim access to Yahweh’s blessings by false statements about Yahweh’s “name,”40 which encapsulates the character more fully outlined in 34:6–7. Doing so will bring guilt that Yahweh will address. Finally, Israel must follow Yahweh’s example of resting one day in seven (20:8–11; see Gen. 2:1–3). Work and the pursuit of wealth must not consume them. Presumably worship will occur on this day since the other six days will be filled with work in an agriculturally based economy (Ex. 20:8). This command applies to the Israelites, resident aliens among them, and even their animals (vv. 9–10). Rest is God’s comprehensive gift to all his creatures.
In verses 12–17, the last six commands set goals and boundaries for human relationships. These begin with respect for parents, a positive guideline that includes a promise of longevity in the land (v. 12) and presumably an unstated threat of the opposite if disobeyed. Then four very terse commands prohibit murder, adultery, stealing, and giving false witness (vv. 13–16). Each of these relates to temporarily or permanently taking something or someone that belongs to another person. The last command is perhaps the most comprehensive of all. In barring coveting (v. 17), Yahweh strikes at the heart of all sin. If one does not covet, or desire, what belongs to someone else, then one will not break the other commandments and thereby sin. Genesis 3:1–6 has demonstrated that sin begins with faith-killing desire. Concluding with coveting indicates the need to protect one’s desires by directing them toward Yahweh and his Word.
Verses 18–21 present the people’s reaction. They fear Yahweh’s power and awesome presence (vv. 18–19), as well they should. But Moses comforts them. He assures them that Yahweh wants their reverence and respect (“fear”) so that they “may not sin” (ESV), the third word in the triad in Exodus 34:6–7 (), or, in other words, “miss God’s goal” (20:20).41 Yahweh wants them to have a relationship with him built on reverence and trust. As John Mackay explains, “The experience . . . of a direct encounter with God should have . . . led to ongoing faith and obedience on their part. It was such an overwhelming experience that thereafter they should always remember it and appreciate who their King was and what he required of them. In that way they would be inhibited from breaking his commands.”42 Exodus 20:20 summarizes succinctly the Bible’s intention for every person’s life on earth. Those who know and respect God are those who do not break faith with the one who made, redeems, and loves them.
Since verses 22–26 discuss sacrifices for sin, there is no way that verses 3–21 mean that Yahweh thinks Israel will keep the commandments flawlessly. Grace frames the commands, for verses 1–2 note how Yahweh redeemed Israel, and verses 22–26 show how Yahweh will forgive Israel. Grace also permeates the Ten Commandments, since as a whole they state how people prone to sin may walk with God and with one another.
Synthesis
Like Genesis 3:1–21, this awe-inspiring passage unfolds against the backdrop of God’s goodness and absolute trustworthiness. Also like Genesis 3:1–21, it sets forth sin’s methods, manners, and consequences. Unlike the earlier text, this one also establishes a broader sense of what sin and its opposite look like in daily life. At least four conclusions are relevant at this point.
First, this text presents Yahweh as Israel’s covenant God and great redeemer. What he has done for them has been due to the promises he made to their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 2:23–25). It has also been due to his love for them as people living in their own generation (see 3:13–18). What he asks of them now will make them able to bless other nations by serving as a kingdom of priests (Gen. 12:1–9; Ex. 19:5–6). It will also help them fulfill God’s original mandate to humanity to care for and rule over creation (see Gen. 1:28–30). This relationship with Israel provides Yahweh’s means for restoring his relationship with others. To borrow one of Paul’s metaphors for the church, Israel will be God’s body on earth (see 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph. 2:11–22). Whatever one concludes about the role of the Ten Commandments in biblical theology, one must reckon with this context of a preexisting relationship.
Second, the commandments set standards to establish how Israel will reflect its relationship with Yahweh. Sin amounts to breaking faith with those covenant commands. As Edmund Jacob comments, “God is the one who enters into relationship and who makes the covenant; sin is a breaking of this relationship.”43 Though specific sin terminology does not appear until Exodus 20:20, the implication that breaking the commands amounts to sin is clearly intended. If Israel respects God (20:20), the one who delivered them from slavery (vv. 1–2), then Israel will obey God’s Word (vv. 3–17). Alternatively, if Israel does not meet Yahweh’s goals, in other words, if they sin (v. 20), then they may in good faith offer sacrifices that will restore fellowship with him (v. 24).
Third, the commandments hint strongly at consequences for disobedience. If Israel sins by bowing to idols, there will be severe consequences (vv. 5–6). If they do not show respect for parents, they will not live long in the land. As Exodus 34:6–7 warns, Yahweh will not clear the guilty. Adam and Eve discovered this fact in Genesis 3:14–26. Sadly, as the Bible unfolds, Israel learns the same in Exodus 32–33 and elsewhere.
Fourth, this passage implies the breadth of sin’s results. As in Genesis 3:1–21, sin threatens to separate people from God. Those who serve other deities, set up idols of Yahweh or some other god, speak falsely about Yahweh, or fail to set aside the seventh day for rest and worship choose to stand apart from him. Such persons refuse to commune with him. They go their own way without the creator of the universe and the redeemer of Israel. Also as in Genesis 3:1–21, sin harms human relationships. People who dishonor parents, sexuality and marriage, life, property, justice, and right desire sow disruption in individual and community life. They tear apart homes, families, courts, and souls. Destruction follows them all the days of their lives. They embody distrust of God; they live by lesser laws. Happily, to the extent that people obey these basic covenantal words, the damage sin does may be minimized.
In these and other ways, God’s Ten Commandments continue the Bible’s description of sin. The definition remains faithlessness to God demonstrated by twisting, rebelling against, and missing the goals he has set. The motive for sin remains desiring something other than what God supplies through the riches of his grace sufficiently to keep from trusting some other person or pattern of life.44 The manners of sin stand out more vividly here. One sins by acting contrary to ten very pervasive statements that entail several interconnected facets of life. Sin’s consequences have not changed, though the punishments introduced in Genesis 3:16–19 become more identifiable. Through God’s love for Israel, his redeemed people, he warns them of the dangers sin entails.
Leviticus 18–19 and Israel’s Witness to Their Neighbors45
For most current Western readers, Leviticus is one of the Bible’s strangest books. Its array of sacrifices, priestly activities, and laws related to agricultural community life is more recognizable to other current cultures.46 As one studies Leviticus carefully, it becomes apparent that this is one of the most theologically oriented books in the Bible. More specifically to the point of this chapter, Leviticus addresses in detail how God, who is holy (see Lev. 11:44),47 defines, forgives, and helps people avoid and overcome sin. It states how God’s people can display in their communities the standards declared in Exodus 20:1–17. This witness of faithfulness to God before their neighbors will mark them as a kingdom of priests for other nations, the goal for them that Yahweh sets in Exodus 19:5–6. Though all of Leviticus is relevant to understanding sin, Leviticus 18 and 19 particularly explain how God’s standards affect Israel’s daily life and through Israel potentially all humanity.
Analysis
Following the golden calf incident and subsequent relational renewal with Yahweh in Exodus 32–34, Israel rights its walk with God. The people and Moses build the tabernacle, and Yahweh blesses their efforts by being present in it (Exodus 35–40). Moses then receives standards for the sorts of sacrifices that will be made at the tabernacle (Leviticus 1–7). Sacrifices were introduced as early as Exodus 20:22–26 (see comments above), so these descriptions are hardly unexpected. Within this opening section, Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, and 27 state that sacrifices must be made because Israelites will do what God’s commands prohibit. Also in this section individuals offer sacrifices for their sins, as do families and the whole nation. Sacrifices are financially means tested, which indicates that all classes of people, rich and poor alike, sin, and also shows Yahweh’s fairness in dealing with the sins of people of different economic conditions. Thus, in these opening chapters sin is personal, societal, and costly. All persons twist, rebel against, and miss the goal of God’s standards. All may also be forgiven.
After Leviticus 8–10 depicts the setting apart of a priestly group to serve within Israel, chapters 11–15 offer a list of ways people or things may be deemed “unclean.” This term basically means “currently or permanently unsuitable for use” (things) or “currently or permanently unsuitable for congregating” (people). The word unclean is not a synonym for sin. Rather, one’s uncleanness may or may not be due to sin. To oversimplify terms, all who sin are unclean, but not all who are unclean have sinned. Leviticus 16 then presents the annual remedy to all sin and uncleanness: the Day of Atonement rituals and sacrifices. However one sins against God, those sins can be forgiven.
Leviticus 17–26 presents several standards for holiness, which basically means “persons or things set apart for particular purposes.” Yahweh stated in 11:44 that he is holy and his people must be holy. This means that Israel must act as Yahweh’s special people and thereby demonstrate his character to the world. In these chapters Moses makes it clear that this demonstration only occurs through reverence for God and his Word (Lev. 19:14, 32; 25:17, 36, 43).48 As in Exodus 20:1–21, relationship with God remains the basis for obedience. Statements about where sacrifices may be made and why blood cannot be consumed in sacrificial rituals follow in Leviticus 17. Then, in chapters 18–19, Yahweh states some specific ways that Israel must act if they are to be his holy people. While doing so he mentions a standard that Jesus says summarizes all commands regarding human relationships: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (19:18; see Mark 12:28–32). At the end of this section, Leviticus 26:14–45 states the consequences that the people will face if they disobey God’s covenant over long periods of time. The covenantal structure of Leviticus 17–26 makes the relational nature of sin ever plainer.
Leviticus 18 delves into the inner recesses of the Israelites’ personal lives. Serving as Yahweh’s kingdom of priests requires them to avoid sexual practices that happen in worship rituals and daily life in Egypt and Canaan (vv. 1–3). In short, Israel must follow God’s laws, not those of the people around them (vv. 3–4).49 His word remains paramount, just as it has since Genesis 1–3. Yahweh alerts them to the fact that they cannot serve lust, idols, and him at the same time. The chapter then proceeds to discuss sexuality, ethics, and worship.
Sexual ethics receive detailed treatment in Leviticus 18.50 Yahweh prohibits four particular actions. Verse 6 introduces the exclusion of sexual relations with “close relatives,” and verses 7–19 define this term. These commands against incest demonstrate Yahweh’s opposition to sexual abuse, not just intermarriage in families. They also state God’s disapproval of the misuse of authority for sexual purposes, and the use of any person, male or female, as merely an object of one’s own pleasure.51 These verses are the most detailed in the Bible on this subject, so they are vital for understanding how to protect victims today.
Verse 20 returns to the subject of adultery introduced in Exodus 20:14. Given the context of Leviticus, this passage asserts that adultery defiles its participants by violating a unique relationship in which they are set apart for a particular person. It blurs family lines, betrays trust, and harms familial relationships. Marital fidelity remains a significant building block in Yahweh’s standards for a kingdom of priests.
Leviticus 18:22 prohibits homosexual acts. The context likely includes deeds committed in cultic52 and noncultic53 settings. Like the sins already mentioned, those who practice homosexuality set aside God’s standards for couples and families set forth in Genesis 1–2. They do not set themselves apart for God’s standards. Romans 1:18–32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 list homosexual acts as one of many sinful activities in a fallen world. It must be remembered that Romans 3–8 and 1 Corinthians 6:11 teach that these acts can be forgiven, just as idolatry, coveting, adultery, and murder can be. Neither this sin nor any other overthrows God’s capacity for grace. Yet it remains a sin, and it is a sin that can break the pattern for sexual activity the Creator has ordained.
Leviticus 18:23 bars bestiality. In this passage it is particularly a sin that debases women. As with homosexuality, there were ancient religions that included this activity. Gordon Wenham writes that it is mentioned in Egyptian, Canaanite, and Hittite sources. Specifically, he writes, “there was a cult in the Eastern delta that involved the cohabitation of women and goats. Indeed Ramses II, possibly the pharaoh of the exodus, claimed to be the offspring of the god Ptah, who took the form of a goat.”54 Whether the text refers to cultic or domestic activity, or both, bestiality in any culture is a sign that sexuality has gone very wrong.
Yahweh makes it clear that participating in these behaviors jeopardizes Israel’s future. God reminds them that they are displacing the Canaanites in part because the current inhabitants of the Promised Land display corrupt theology and ethics (18:24–28; see Gen. 15:13–16). Israelites who act in these ways are to be excluded from the community, lest sin spread (Lev. 18:29–30). God’s Word can save Israel from following other nations’ self-destructive patterns. It can also show them how to display Yahweh’s character to a world very much in need of protection, grace, and truth.
Leviticus 19 ranges well beyond sexual ethics. As in Exodus 20:1–17, respect for God and neighbor frames these laws (Lev. 19:2, 18), as does God’s past relationship with Israel (vv. 3, 4, 10, 12, etc.). God’s holiness is the basis for these rules (v. 2), and Israel’s holiness as a people living as priests to the nations is their goal (v. 37). The chapter repeats or explains several of the Ten Commandments. As in Exodus 20:1–11, idolatry is prohibited and proper worship required (Lev. 19:4–8, 30). Commands to spurn divination, sorcery, and mediums are also given (vv. 26, 31). All these reflect trust in other deities. Once again anything that replaces trust in Yahweh and his Word cannot be countenanced.
This chapter also contains very clear requirements for the treatment of one’s neighbor. Israelites are not to avenge wrongs or bear grudges. Rather, they must love their neighbors as they love themselves (v. 18). This very positive statement includes persons of foreign descent who are not permanent in the land (vv. 33–34). Israel shows their love for God by showing love to one another and to strangers. Love is the heart of God’s dealings with Israel, and it must be the basis for the kingdom of priests’ dealings with others. Loving one another helps Israel to avoid stealing, bearing false witness, harming the poor, and perverting justice (vv. 9–16). It combats sin at its roots—in the heart (v. 17). It eliminates sins against foreigners, family, and business associates (vv. 20–36), even those who may be one’s enemies. No person is outside the definition of “neighbor.” Jesus was surely right, then, to expound the concept of “neighbor” through the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). Paul was equally justified in telling the Romans to show love even for those who mistreated them (see Rom. 12:14–21).
Synthesis
Leviticus 18–19 provides further elaboration of the application of God’s standards to daily life among his chosen kingdom of priests. First, sexual sins have the power to shred communities. They threaten what remains of the male-female intimacy in Genesis 2:25 and shake God’s chosen foundation for human life as God’s image (Gen. 1:26). Incest makes the pain between parents and children promised to Adam and Eve worse. Today we know that sexual abuse has particular power to harm people emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Adultery breaks faith so significantly that the Old Testament later uses adultery as a major metaphor to describe Israel’s covenant faithlessness (see Hosea 1–3; Jer. 2:1–37; etc.). Bestiality turns women and animals into objects, treating them as if they were not creatures of the living God. Homosexuality violates God’s purposes for sexuality. Again, all sins damage people. Sexual sins are not necessarily worse than other types of sin, but they do have horrific power to mar, ruin, and end relationships.
Second, sins against others begin with a lack of love for them. Sinning begins by placing self above the needs of others. It may take the form of loving only people like oneself. Yahweh does not give his people this option. The stranger deserves the same sort of love given oneself and one’s own ethnic or geographical grouping.55 Whatever the origins of the first-century AD belief that Jews should not mix at all with Gentiles, it is not in Leviticus. Israel cannot be the priests for other nations by shutting off their compassion for them. Racism in all its active and passive manifestations is a sin against one’s neighbor and against God.
Third, sin is a very relational matter. It begins with not being holy, not being set apart for God. It starts with lack of love for neighbors. It occurs when one treats strangers and foreigners as less than one’s neighbor. It affects one’s sexuality; it harms one’s nonfamilial relationships. As in earlier passages, it is not contained in one’s mind; it cannot be localized in a person, clan, or race. It spills over into every arena of life. God’s Word helps instruct those who trust God and follow his teaching, yet it also points out faithless behavior.
Jesus was, among other things, an excellent biblical theologian. He often crystallized massive portions of Scripture in a few words. One of those times was when he was asked to name the “great commandment in the Law” (Matt. 22:34). He responded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:37–40). In citing Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, he laid bare the essence of God’s will. God desires a relationship with human beings based in love for him, demonstrated by acts of love for him and others. As was noted above, Jesus defined “neighbor” as Leviticus 19:18–37 does. In doing so, he linked God’s mission for Israel to be a kingdom of priests with his plans for his followers to take his message to the world (see Matt. 28:16–20). Sinning by failing to show love or by hating enemies is simply unbiblical and inimical to God’s will for his followers in any generation.
Numbers 13–14 and Sin’s Origins and Destination
Among many other things, Genesis 12—Deuteronomy 34 is a travel document. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants are always heading to one destination or another. Sin always seems to be on the move with them. As has been argued above, sin has its own points of origin and ultimate ends. In Numbers 13–14, Israel’s movements toward fulfilling God’s plans for them halt because sin moves among the people. This very sad convergence summarizes much of sin’s march in the Torah.
Analysis
Yahweh continues his communications to Israel through Moses in Numbers (see 1:1). A year has passed since the exodus (1:1). It is time to move from Sinai to Canaan. God gives marching orders in Numbers 1–4 and then presents ways in which the people must prepare themselves to worship and make war in the Promised Land (5:1–10:10). The people, priests, and clan leaders commit themselves to doing God’s will in all aspects of their lives. The nation enjoys their first Passover as free people (9:1–5). Following these preparations, they set out (10:11–36). They complain about their provisions in 11:1–15, and Aaron and Miriam complain about Moses and his new wife in 12:1–2. God deals very kindly with Moses’ leadership burdens in 11:16–30 but very harshly with the complainers (11:31–35; 12:3–16). Overall, these chapters portray Israel’s actions positively. Perhaps readers could be excused for thinking that after Exodus 34 the worst is past. Sadly, some terrible troubles lurk on the horizon.
Numbers 13–14 begins with hope-filled activity but soon describes confused debate about the future. The passage opens with a reconnaissance mission (13:1–24). Twelve spies traverse Canaan. In their initial report, ten spies admit that Canaan is a good land but do not think that Israel can conquer it. Two spies (Joshua and Caleb) disagree. Sorrow and dismay mount among the people. They despair. Then they talk of killing Moses and Aaron, replacing them, and going back to Egypt (14:1–4). Nothing Aaron, Moses, Joshua, and Caleb say dissuades them (vv. 5–10). Individual and corporate rebellion against God’s stated promises and purposes runs rampant.
Everyone else seemingly heard, Yahweh clears away the disorder and its root causes (v. 10b). Addressing Moses, he wonders why the people despise him (v. 11a). Tellingly, he then asks, “And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?” (v. 11b). The motive for sin remains unbelief. This unbelief is manifested as lack of faith in Yahweh. As was true of Adam and Eve, though God has given Israel all they need, they do not believe in him. They are not moved to faith for their future by the previous signs that he did in Egypt.
Those who do not trust Yahweh act accordingly. They rebel against Yahweh, his Word, and his chosen leaders. They set their own standards and follow their own course of life. Reasoning and pleading with them do not avail. Current trouble tends to cloud their vision. Without realizing it, they wreck their futures and mar their children’s. As the Bible proceeds, they are remembered as prime examples of persons who twist the truth, rebel against God, and miss the goal he set for them (see Ezek. 20:13–16; Pss. 78:17–19, 40–55; 95:7–11; 1 Cor. 10:1–22; Heb. 3:7–19).
God and Moses next have a conversation reminiscent of Exodus 32–33. God tells Moses that he would just as soon start over with Moses and build a new people after destroying the wicked (Num. 14:12). In response, Moses prays Exodus 34:6–7. He affirms God’s kind and forbearing character and Yahweh’s redemption of Israel (Num. 14:13–18). Interestingly, he includes the fact that Yahweh does not clear the guilty. He knows that the people have sinned, yet he asks Yahweh to pardon them (v. 19).
Yahweh acts according to his character. He acts mercifully in that he does not destroy those who despise him and fail to trust him (v. 20). He also acts justly by not allowing those who rebel to enter Canaan (vv. 21–23). He acts graciously and with covenant loyalty by promising that Joshua, Caleb, and the next generation will receive the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (vv. 24–25).
The consequences of Israel’s sins are tremendous. Their uprising costs the rebels everything they left Egypt to possess. The ten contentious spies lose their lives (vv. 36–38). When they see this, the people try to retrace their steps and invade after all (vv. 39–40). Moses responds by telling them they are once again “transgressing56 the command of Yahweh” (v. 41), one of the hallmarks of sin. They should accept the situation and ready their children for Canaan. They refuse, and many die trying to invade the land, which is one more example of their stubborn refusal to obey Yahweh (vv. 44–45).
Synthesis
In Numbers 13–14, sin begins in the heart and ends with rebellion, just as before, yet this passage may help answer some questions readers might pose. For instance, one might ask, “What if people had more experience? Would they still sin?” This passage shows that long ages after Adam and Eve’s unbelief led inevitably to a path of destructive action, the pattern continues. Sin is not simply a bad habit that one overcomes. It is not a mistake corrected and contained. Of course people can learn to stop stupid and harmful behaviors, but sin still persists, threatening to start the madness all over again.
One might also ask, “What if God showed people more signs and wonders? What if he gave them more evidence of his existence and goodness? Would people still sin?” By Numbers 13–14, the people have seen amazing things. God has sent numerous startling plagues on Egypt. He has parted the Red Sea. He has fed and clothed them in a desert. One more miracle will hardly convince them. John’s Gospel tells a similar tale. Some of the people who saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead believed in him (John 11:45), but not all who saw did. Some wanted Jesus stopped (vv. 46–53). None claimed that Lazarus was still in the grave instead of walking freely about in Bethany. No wonder Jesus once stated flatly that those who do not believe Moses and the prophets would not believe if one rose from the dead (Luke 16:31). Unbelief is tenacious.
Finally, one might ask, “What if God clarified his standards? With the fog of uncertainty lifted, would the people learn not to sin?” Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy explain God’s ways as they relate to dozens of facets of personal, familial, and community life. These elaborations of the Ten Commandments certainly help those who humbly come to Yahweh for forgiveness, fellowship, and ongoing commitment to repentance. They help those who love God and teach his ways to their children (Deut. 6:4–9). At the same time, they reveal the multiple ways that people trust the wrong person or choose alternative paths to the ones that God has set. As helpful laws pour forth, so does the clarification of what constitutes sin. This knowledge and much more lies behind Paul’s statements in Romans 7:7–25. He writes that God’s laws are good and holy, yet the more one knows about them, the more one can see one’s sins and need for grace.
Conclusion
More passages could be examined, especially in Deuteronomy, but the results will not change. Deuteronomy stands with the passages already examined in confirming certain core principles. Indeed, Deuteronomy reinforces them, for like Leviticus it is patterned as a covenant document57 that clearly reveals the consequences for rebellion (see Lev. 26:14–45; Deut. 28:15–68).
Sin’s motives do not change. Humans inevitably eventually choose to believe someone other than God because they want something that God has not promised or because they simply do not believe what God has declared. The problem, then, is not with God. He provides for people, for he is kind, compassionate, and utterly committed to covenant relationship making. The problem lies in human beings’ twisting, rebelling against, and missing the goals that God has set in his standards. Yet God stands ready to forgive. Adam, Eve, and Moses’ Israelites all act against God and his word because of unbelief and its accompanying destructive desires and deeds.
Likewise, sin’s manners do not alter, though the examples of sin multiply. Sin affects every aspect of human beings’ existence. It corrupts their relationship with God, requiring his redemptive acts for them to be overcome. It mars their interactions with one another, making life in the home, in society, and in one’s heart less than what God made it to be. It leads to decisions and deeds that scar the physical world around them. Without God’s clear covenantal directions, the situation grows worse as people live in the darkness of their own ethical devices. Yet the more God teaches, the more sin becomes visible. Once again God’s redemption is the only ultimate source of hope.
Finally, sin’s consequences are not altered. Death comes to the ten rebellious spies in Numbers 13–14 just as it does to Adam and Eve. Failure at all levels of human life follows. These texts serve as warnings and as guides. Thus, they encourage readers to turn to Yahweh in faith and thereby to turn from sin. For those who refuse to heed these warnings, however, they become God’s writ of condemnation. Warnings can cause hardening to those who ignore them, as was the case with Pharaoh in Exodus 5–15 and the tardy warriors in Numbers 13–14. God’s standards can become ethical touchstones for people committed to Yahweh and to his means of restoring relationship after they sin (see Ex. 20:22–26). As always in the Bible, one’s walk with God depends on one’s faith in God, the creator, covenant maker, forgiver, and sender of his people to be a kingdom of priests that declare his glory to the world (1 Pet. 2:9–10). In all of life, that which “does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Faith leads to obedience to what God has said. Obedience to God because of who he is, what he has done, and what he commands remains the opposite of sin.
1 Elmer Martens, God’s Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981).
2 Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998); Mark Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009).
3 Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) 380–443; John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2: Israel’s Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 254–310.
4 This term refers to using several types of traditional methods of Old Testament theology in newer writings on the subject and was coined by Gerhard Hasel in his Old Testament Theology: Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 207.
5 Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 16.
6 I attempted to develop some of these ideas in my article “God’s Character and the Wholeness of Scripture,” SBET 23 (Spring 2005): 4–17.
7 The translations of Exodus 34:6–7 and the terms found there throughout the paper are the author’s. All other scripture quotations are from the ESV.
8 According to Mike Butterworth, the terms appear together eleven times in the Old Testament. Thus, they form a liturgical formula based on common understandings of the two words. See his “rhm,” NIDOTTE, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 3:1094.
9 See H. J. Stoebe, “hnn,” TLOT, trans. Mark E. Biddle, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 1:442–43.
10 Robert C. Dentan, “The Literary Affinities of Exodus 34:6f.,” VT 13 (1963): 42.
11 Not every instance of this word occurs in a covenantal context, as Dentan (“Literary Affinities,” 42) observes. However, the covenant context is a strong component of the word’s usage, so it is likely that passages that are not specifically covenantal in context have something like “covenant-type” love or commitment in mind.
12 Nahum Sarna states that this word “encompasses reliability, durability, and faithfulness.” See Exodus, JPS Torah Commentary (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 216.
13 See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1988), 343.
14 For a discussion of these three terms as foundational to the problem of sin in the Old Testament, see T. V. Farris, Mighty to Save: A Study in Old Testament Soteriology (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1993), 120–39; and Ludwig Kohler, Old Testament Theology, trans. A. S. Todd (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), 169–71.
15 Alex Luc, “awon,” NIDOTTE, 3:351.
16 Rolf Knierim, “awon,” TLOT, 2:863–64.
17 Ibid., 1036.
18 Rolf Knierim, “ht’,” TLOT, 1:406–11.
19 See, for example, Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, and Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 227.
20 This is a theme in Mark Biddle’s Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005).
21 Martens, God’s Design, 28.
22 Contra J. A. Motyer, Look to the Rock: An Old Testament Background to Our Understanding of Christ (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity, 1996), 114. I have also heard several sermons through the years that assert that Eve’s answer reveals incipient legalism, since she says she may not touch the tree when God has only said she must not eat the fruit. She could not eat the fruit without touching it, so I am not inclined to agree with this interpretation. If she “tampers with” God’s word, as Motyer suggests, then I think this would be the first sin, not the root of the first sin.
23 John Calvin, Genesis, trans. John King (1554; trans., 1847; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996), 154.
24 Ibid.
25 Nahum Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 24.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 This section follows closely my comments in Old Testament Theology, 67–68.
29 For discussions of “original sin,” see Alan Jacobs, Original Sin: A Cultural History (New York: HarperCollins, 2008); and Henri Blocher, Original Sin (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999). For a good discussion of different approaches to this subject by Old Testament theologians, see Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) 147–58.
30 Joshua; Judges; 1–2 Samuel; and 1–2 Kings.
31 Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; and the Twelve (Minor Prophets).
32 Patrick D. Miller, The Ten Commandments (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 1.
33 Ibid., 1–2.
34 Ibid., 2–3.
35 For a list of the repetition of these promises in Genesis—Deuteronomy, consult David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, JSOTSup 10 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978), 32–43.
36 Ibid., 73.
37 Gary Schnittjer, The Torah Story: An Apprenticeship on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 247.
38 Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1998).
39 For a brief discussion of 20:6–7, see the comments on Ex. 34:6–7 above.
40 For a description of the appropriateness of using a wide range of meanings for this commandment, see Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, OTL ( Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 409–12; and Miller, The Ten Commandments, 63–108.
41 Author’s translation.
42 John Mackay, Exodus, Mentor Commentary Series (Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 2001), 356–57.
43 Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. Arthur W. Heathcote and Philip J. Allcock (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), 281.
44 On how future faith, hope, and love depend on understanding and trusting God due to his past acts of deliverance, see Scott J. Hafemann, The God of Promise and the Life of Faith: Understanding the Heart of the Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
45 Much of this section is adapted from my Old Testament Theology, 126, 143–45; and my Leviticus/Numbers, Shepherd’s Notes (Nashville: Broadman, 1999), 38–41.
46 On this subject see Philip Jenkins, The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
47 Note the definition of this term below.
48 See Boda, A Severe Mercy, 79.
49 Paul makes a similar point in Rom. 12:1–2.
50 For a detailed discussion of sexual ethics in the Old Testament, consult Hilary B. Lipka, Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible, Hebrew Bible Monographs 7 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006); and Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007).
51 See John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4 (Waco, TX: Word, 1992), 289–301.
52 Marvin Pope argues that homosexual acts were part of cultic activity in ancient times. See Marvin H. Pope, “Homosexuality,” in IDBSup, ed. Keith R. Crim (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 415. See also Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, JPS Torah Commentary (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 123.
53 See Genesis 19 and Judges 19.
54 Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 252.
55 For elaboration on love in action in Christian ethics, see Michael Hill, The How and Why of Love: An Introduction to Evangelical Ethics (Sydney: Matthias Media, 2002).
56 This word is a form of pesa.
57 See Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963); and Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976).