Unlike Leviticus 18 and 20, Leviticus 19 does not say quite so directly that the practices listed therein are obligatory or wicked for all people in various places, whether Jews or Gentiles, but it certainly does not present them as matters of culturally relativistic ethics or as largely relevant only to Israelites. Various deeds are simply prescribed or condemned in themselves. This alone contradicts Rabbinic Judaism's misconception of the very limited moral revelation in Genesis 9, where God declares murder evil, clarifies that murder deserves execution, and prohibits eating any animal flesh with blood in it. Supposedly, the Torah and general Old Testament proclaim that Gentiles, non-Israelites/non-Jews, only have to uphold seven obligations revealed to Noah after the great flood. Besides murder and eating blood, this base set of merely seven sins for Gentiles include idolatry and theft.
Genesis mentions a smaller number of commands (one of which has nothing to do with the "seven"; see 9:1, 7) and does not even imply they are exhaustive. Nevertheless, some Rabbinic Jews will go back and forth about whether these seven sins are really seven categories, as some will try to arbitrarily reframe Rabbinic Judaism's, not actual Judaism's, concept of the Noahide Laws when confronted with how much they do not address whatsoever or necessitate by logical extension. For example, despite God only mentioning murder in Genesis 9, certain Rabbinic traditions rest on the assumption that God actually prohibited murder and other injury. Injuries ranging from minor wounds to permanent damage to an eye or the loss of a tooth are only directly addressed elsewhere in the Torah (Exodus 21:18-19, 22-27). Also, in very specific cases, inflicting injury is itself required in just punishments (Exodus 21:22-25, Deuteronomy 25:11-12).
As I have frequently written about, moral relativism and racism are illogical, a more foundational problem than that they are immoral by the Biblical standards Rabbinic Jews misunderstand. And yes, there is nothing about racism (or sexism, ageism, or classism) in the Noahide Laws beyond not murdering or stealing, and so on, in any sort of racially discriminatory way. An act that is wicked by nature cannot be permissible for Gentiles but not for Jews and vice versa. Two differing legal systems cannot both be correct at once. Such facts are logically true independent of Biblical doctrines or Rabbinic consensus/belief if something really is evil. In fact, anything contrary to logic is false by default, since logic being false still entails a logical reason for why it is false, whatever that reason would be. Hence, it is inherently true. Does the Torah contradict logic by teaching one moral standard for Jews and another for Gentiles?
No. More than this, it contains many plain statements of holistic moral universality even when no particular examples are mentioned, such as in Genesis 15:13-16, Deuteronomy 4:5-8, 9:4-6, and 20:16-18. This is one ramification of the egalitarian standing of all people before God (Genesis 1:26-27); Jews do not have a greater metaphysical status than Gentiles. From the broader Old Testament, verses like Ezekiel 5:5-7 and Ecclesiastes 12:14 convey that the laws revealed by Yahweh reflect moral obligations for all people. Additionally, certain sins entirely outside the scope of the literal seven alleged Noahide Laws are indeed said in the Torah to be evil when committed by Gentiles in their own communities, far away from Israelite presence, including in Deuteronomy 18:9-13, a passage of relevance to some of the actions prohibited in Leviticus 19.
This chapter of Leviticus indeed mentions many sinful behaviors that other parts of Leviticus or the extended Torah state are evil for Gentiles, with many of them not even being among the asininely incomplete list of the Rabbinic Noahide Laws. That Israel receives these moral instructions is irrelevant to whether they are binding on all people to begin with, and Leviticus 19:3 combined with Leviticus 20 gives a clear example early in the chapter of something outside the scope of the Rabbinic Noahide Laws being wicked for Gentiles.
Leviticus 19:3—"'"Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the Lord your God."'"
I will focus on the portion of the above verse connected to regard for one's parents. A person's father and mother (with a strict emphasis on gender equality as is also present in many of Yahweh's laws) must be specially respected as their parents and not just as generic people. Yes, Leviticus 19:3 and its immediate and extended context say nothing about this being required only of Israelites; yes, relativism is logically impossible anyway. And yes, Gentiles have parents as do Jews, so there is nothing about the nature of honoring one's father and mother limited to having a particular ancestry. Honoring one's parents also has nothing to do with murder, idolatry, and so on by itself. Yet Leviticus 20:9 condemns verbally cursing one's father and mother before verses 22-23 address how God loathed pagan, Gentile societies for this among other sins.
Of course, the content of Leviticus 20:9 could not be mandatory for Gentiles without Exodus 20:12's and Deuteronomy 5:16's command to honor one's father and mother also applying to them. In turn, attacking one's father or mother (Exodus 21:15) and refusing to submit to their legitimate correction and instructions (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) would also be evil because their wickedness extends from dishonoring one's parents being evil. If an act objectively deserves a given punishment as these verses teach, moreover, then implementing that exact penalty when applicable, and not merely avoiding the sin being punished, is by necessity also universally required. The capital punishment obligations could not be culturally relative either—as if Jews themselves have collectively upheld the punishment prescriptions for these sins even among their own communities!
Along with mediumship, dishonoring one's parents by cursing them is one of the two sins prohibited in Leviticus 19, which is addressed to an Israelite audience although it does not follow that its obligations are only for Israelites, that is then explicitly declared a depravity even when Gentiles practice it in the very next chapter. Neither is among the Noahide Laws as contrived and misinterpreted by Rabbinic Jews, yet Leviticus 19 condemns dishonoring one's father and mother and practicing mediumship as sins in themselves, and Leviticus 20 acknowledges that these sins are wicked no matter the race or nationality of the person engaging in them, or when or where they live. Indeed, they warrant capital punishment according to Leviticus 20:9 and 20:27, verses that also affirm the gender equality of men and women as victims and perpetrators of sins respectively (and they are not the only ones in Leviticus 20 alone that do this). It is of significance that these emphases on gender equality are included within Leviticus 20, one of several Torah sections that addresses the universality of morality between Jews and Gentiles while simultaneously touching on how men and women have equal value, rights, and obligations (except for in a handful of genuinely anatomy and physiology-related matters).
Leviticus 19:26—"'"Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. Do not practice divination or seek omens."'"
Here, two things are condemned. I will address both sins in question in this case, starting with the consumption of blood. Eating blood is first revealed as immoral to Noah as early as Genesis 9:4 and is among the Rabbinic Noahide Laws, though the sin is misunderstood severely by followers of Rabbinic Judaism rather than rationalism and true Judaism, which Christianity is a fulfillment of rather than a substitute for. It is not one of seven prescriptions in Genesis 9 given to Noah because seven are not provided, nor does Genesis say there are only seven obligations or seven categories of obligation for humanity at large. However, Genesis 9:4 is misunderstood in other ways by some Rabbinic Jews (a Rabbinic Jew is someone of a particular fallacious worldview and as opposed to a Jew; I am not stereotyping anyone). The obligation is often articulated as if the core sin is eating the limb of a living animal. What is the connection? If someone dismembered part of a still-living creature and immediately ate its flesh, it would contain blood. While this could be one way a person consumes blood, it is neither the exclusive nor the primary act condemned in Genesis 9:4 or in the later parts of the Torah relevant to the subject, including Leviticus 19:26.
Ironically, that one of the alleged Noahide Laws in the sense meant by Rabbinic Jews is reiterated as part of Mosaic Law only reinforces that the tenets of Mosaic Law are obligatory for all people except where there are logically necessary exceptions—the Jew-Gentile equivalent of how women cannot be obligated to have their foreskin removed by circumcision because they have no foreskin. The same is true of murder. Genesis 9:6 first declares it a universal sin, with Exodus (20, 21, and 23), Leviticus (24), Numbers (35), and Deuteronomy (5, 19, and 27) all likewise condemning murder. That Genesis 9 does not specifically mention miscellaneous sins like neglecting to pen up a dangerous farm animal so that it kills a man or woman (Exodus 21:28-32) or harvesting all of one's crops (if in an area with poor people) so that the poor cannot freely eat from the edges of one's field (Leviticus 19:9-10) does not mean these actions or inactions have not always been inherently sinful for all people. They are simply not specifically mentioned in Genesis 9. Other parts of the Torah condemn them, and logically and Biblically, there is nothing about them that is restricted to post-Sinai Jewish obligations.
Rather, the Biblical text details the specifics of other universal obligations, whether related or unrelated to avoiding murder and eating blood, primarily throughout the chapters of the Torah from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy 27. But it is clear even from Genesis 6 that some forms of unspecified violence besides murder are Biblically wicked and from Genesis 26:5 and Exodus 18:15-16 that Yahweh had revealed at least a number of his laws to individuals or their communities before the moral revelation tied to the Mosaic Covenant. That a special covenant is made with the Israelites in no way means the Bible teaches that much of morality is relative to one's Jewish or Gentile ancestry apart from a mere seven exact actions, something that would render the moral philosophy of Judeo-Christianity contrary to logic and thus not even possibly true if it was actually what the Bible put forth. It is not.
Besides pertaining to the eating of blood as already condemned in Genesis 9:6, which even fallacious Rabbinic thinkers rightly accept as binding on all Jews and Gentiles, Leviticus 19:26 condemns divination and seeking or by necessary extension interpreting or encouraging the interpretation of omens, practices outright condemned elsewhere as intrinsic sins and part of the reason why the pagans living in the Promised Land before the Israelites deserved to be driven out or killed. Deuteronomy 18:9-13 states that behaviors like divination, sorcery, interpretation of omens, and trying to communicate with the dead (whether successfully or not, for the dead are not even conscious left to themselves according to verses like Ecclesiastes 9:5 and 10) were evils embraced by certain Gentile nations.
In the context of straightforward denouncement of non-Israelites who engage in these and other behaviors, the direct statements of Deuteronomy say that whoever does such things is detestable or an abomination, depending on the translation, and is regarded as such by God. Despite the likes of divination falling into the same category as sorcery and the practices of a medium (mediumship), which is condemned in the very next chapter (Leviticus 20:6) as a sin of the Canaanites for which God hated them (verses 22-23), it is not condemned directly in Leviticus 19 except in verse 31.
Leviticus 19:31—"'"Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God."'"
Shortly after, using the same pattern as Leviticus 18 by bringing up certain sins before declaring non-Israelite nations guilty of them, Leviticus 20:6 lists the practices of a medium as a depravity prevalent enough in the Promised Land to be one of the foundational reasons why the pagan offenders would be displaced according to verses 22-23. Verse 27 demands capital punishment for every man or woman who acts as a medium or spiritist. Now, some proponents of Rabbinic Judaism's illogical and unbiblical Noahide Laws might conflate mediumship with idolatry and thus still consider it wicked for Gentiles on their relativistic, racist moral framework of seven universal sins. Select forms of consulting the dead could stem from idolatrous philosophy and practice, but Leviticus and Deuteronomy go beyond calling mediumship and spiritism evil only when coupled with idolatrous belief or practice. They clearly condemn all cases of engaging in them for any reason. Neither curiosity nor personal grief over the death of a loved one nor desperation, as compelled King Saul to seek guidance from the dead in 1 Samuel 28, legitimizes the act for any Jew or Gentile because the act itself is evil.
Leviticus 19:35-36—"'"Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity. Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt."'"
In addition to the act necessarily being immoral no matter who commits it or is victimized by it if it is immoral in the first place, using dishonest weights and measures, such as in a business context, is said to be something God hates people for in Deuteronomy 25:13-16. "For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things," says verse 16. The text does not say God hates any Israelite who does these things. Even then, since something being truly immoral means it is immoral for everyone capable of engaging in it without regard to race, nationality, or gender, a statement like that would still not necessitate that Gentiles are morally free to use dishonest weights and measures in their business and personal dealings. Such words would still not convey that God only hates Israelites who sin in such ways or that these behaviors are not sinful for anyone outside of ethnic Israel.
As something related to theft, for the businessperson using dishonest standards of measurement to take more money from clients without providing proportionate or promised value in exchange, the contents of Leviticus 19:35-36 would fall into a subset of the obligation to not steal even on Rabbinic Judaism. However, the handful of true "Noahide Laws" in Genesis 9 do not mention theft or deception whatsoever, as objectively incomplete as they obviously are on numerous levels by Biblical standards. And dishonesty pursued in a context like business dealings is really what the text mainly emphasizes as evil in both Leviticus 19 and Deuteronomy 25. One way or another, Rabbinic Judaism's Noahide Laws are illogical and unbiblical yet again. Exploitative deception is not itself one of the seven supposed obligations for all humans.
It is obvious to a rationalistic reader that the aforementioned passages connected with various verses in Leviticus 19 make it clear that individual sins like cursing one's parents, practicing divination, contacting the dead, and selling to customers in a deceptive, exploitative, or arbitrarily inconsistent manner are absolutely evil when done by any Gentile or to any Gentile. Already, one can find multiple sins tied to the same chapter of Leviticus that fall entirely outside the literal scope of the Rabbinic Noahide Laws. Leviticus alone, Deuteronomy alone, and the connections between the two books single out such sins as universal, aside from the logical ramifications of how other sins must be universally binding on all people if they are genuine sins and aside from the more broad ways the Torah treats morality as universal among Israelites and Gentiles.
What of other miscellaneous parts of Leviticus 19 which are not individually emphasized as inherently wicked for all people in one way or another in Leviticus 20 or the book of Deuteronomy? Leviticus 19:14 and 32 are clearly about the human rights of the disabled and elderly in their position, for instance. One could be a Jew or Gentile and be disabled or elderly, so there is nothing about the nature of the statuses, rights, or obligations these verses deal with which is logically contingent on being an Israelite. Nor do Leviticus 19:14 and 32 state or suggest that these commands do not reflect rights and obligations all people have, independent of what person or group the moral instructions are issued to by God. If they did so, I again point out that this would be logically erroneous and would disqualify such parts of the Bible from being even possibly true.
Still, some moral prescriptions revealed in Yahweh's laws throughout the Torah do strictlty apply to Israel and/or Gentiles living among them. It is just that these do not have to do with issues like gender equality, Sabbath rest, or making restitution for specific sins, but with actions that by nature do not apply to moderners or Gentiles living away from ancient Israel. See Leviticus 19:23-25 for an example.
Leviticus 19:23-25—"'"When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten. In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the Lord your God."'"
When the Israelites of the time period described in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and so on at last entered the Promised Land, they were obligated to not eat from any fruit tree they planted until the fifth year after the planting for the sake of expressing gratitude and praise to God. This cannot be obligatory for later Israelites or for Gentiles living in other regions because it is inherently tied to a very exact historical time and place. The Promised Land was already secured by ancient Israel according to the books following Deuteronomy. I will again bring attention to how a multitude of passages throughout the Torah regard behaviors far beyond the seven Noahide Laws contrived by irrationalistic, relativistic Rabbis as evils on the part of those living in the Promised Land before the Israelites (Leviticus 18:5-30, Leviticus 20:1-23, Deuteronomy 9:4-6, 18:9-13, etc.). If anything, that the likes of not eating from a fruit tree planted in the newly conquered Promised Land until five years later only apply to Jews actually highlights how anything else also necessarily applies to all Gentiles in all historical periods.
As explicitly clarified by Leviticus 20, all parents deserve to be respected by their sons and daughters, whether they are Jewish or Gentile parents. Similarly, all disabled people deserve to not be taken advantage of in their heightened vulnerability, regardless of their race, geographical location, and place in the historical timeline. All people have the right to not be exploited as consumers/buyers, and accordingly, all people sin by using fraudulent or oppressive business practices. The same is also true of numerous other aspects of Mosaic Law. Just as murder is inherently, equally evil (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13, 21:12-14, 20-21, and so on) whether the murderer or victim is a Jew or Gentile, all other forms of sinful violence (such as those condemned in Exodus 21:15, 18-19, and 22-27) are evil no matter if the one carrying them out is a Jew or Gentile and regardless of where and when they live.
By strict logical necessity and by exact Biblical clarification, the particulars of Mosaic Law, whenever they are not logically confined to literal Jews or the ancient world due to the nature of the obligation in question, are on Judeo-Christianity clearly reflective of universal moral rights and obligations that neither were invented by God for the sake of a covenant nor have anything to do with relativism or racism. Just as all men and women are bound by the same objective moral duties save for the anatomy-related exceptions (there are no fallacious stereotype-related exceptions), the same is true of all Jews and Gentiles save for exceptions like the one dealt with in Leviticus 19:23-25.
All people must acknowledge the equality of men and women as offenders and victims in matters of violence and let the abused go free (Exodus 21:26-27). All people must make restitution for theft and adjacent sins (Exodus 22:1-15, Numbers 5:5-8, ect.). According to the Old Testament long before the New Testament reaffirms the universality of Yahweh's Laws not limited by nature to specific people or historical times (such as in Matthew 5:17-19, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and Romans 13:8-10), all people must not curse their rulers (Exodus 22:28), take advantage of widows or by extension widowers or any other people in their vulnerability (Exodus 21:22-24), or legally punish someone apart from two or three consistent witnesses or evidences (Deuteronomy 19:15). And regardless of the Bible, cultural and race-based relativism are logically false. Any moral standard that exists would transcend ancestry and social norms.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment