God does not have to singularly mention every sin referenced in Mosaic Law to a Gentile audience, inside or outside the exact accounts of the Bible, for what is immoral to be, well, immoral for everyone. Such an obvious logical fact would only be denied by someone who has assumed a contradictory and thus false idea to be true and refuses to turn to reason. Any other form of supposedly Biblical form of moral realism would be some type of ancestry-based relativism, which is of course logically impossible.
Aside from the fact that morality must be universal if it exists, wherever reason itself does not require an exception, Leviticus 17 says enough to require that on Biblical Judaism, eating blood would still be evil for everyone, wherever and whenever they live. In the absence of Genesis 9:4, which must also apply to Gentiles even according to the fallacious criteria of Rabbinic Judaism because God's words therein are addressed to people before Israel, eating blood would still clearly be a sin for Gentiles in their own lands. This is even independent from how the Mosaic Law that contains Leviticus 17 is said to reflect moral duties all people must submit to (Leviticus 20:1-23, Deuteronomy 4:5-8, 18:9-12, etc.). This is because Leviticus 17 gives the reason why eating blood is depravity. The matter is not limited to who carries out the act.
If a Gentile man or woman of any era of time or in any geographical location ingested blood, their race or nationality changes nothing about how blood, according to Leviticus, is connected with the life of a creature: the life of an animal is in its blood (17:11, 14). Thus, the suitability of a given animal's meat for consumption would not override the very reason Leviticus gives within Mosaic Law for why blood should never be ingested. This reason presented by God in Leviticus 17—the same one previously shared in Genesis 9 and again in Deuteronomy 12:23, also part of Mosaic Law—is explicitly about the nature of blood and the life of embodied creatures, not about the identity of the one doing the eating. Even the second reason having to do with the Levitical priesthood making atonement using blood (17:11) would not nullify that the first is applicable to all people.
Regardless of all other reasons, it is logically true, like it or not, that eating blood would have to be sinful for both Jews and Gentiles because the central Biblical reason why it is evil, one way or another, has nothing to do with who a person is. But neither does the vast majority of Mosaic Law's ethics have anything to do with someone being an Israelite as opposed to something being wrong on its own. For instance, do the foreigners living among the Jews need/deserve rejuvenation or to recognize God by having a weekly day of rest (Exodus 20:8-10, 23:12, etc.) moreso than Gentiles around the world? And if part of the reason why the Sabbath should be kept is because God himself rested (Genesis 2:2-3, Exodus 20:11), this obligation could not specifically or exclusively be for Jews, apart from all other logical and Biblical reasons why this would be false. Also, just because the reason for a Biblical obligation is not stated in the Torah does not mean the reason would not necessarily apply to Gentiles of all times and places as well as Jews.
It really is not hard to demonstrate that someone's requirement to uphold majority of morality cannot have anything to do with their race, nationality, or lineage. This much is simply true due to logic. The Rabbinic misconceptions of Judaism contradict this, but they were never rooted in either reason or the Bible. They were about fostering a sense of racist superiority or distance from Gentiles as the adherents of this perversion of Judaism misunderstood the core nature of the Sinai covenant with Yahweh, along with other things like logic itself and what is therefore true independent of the Bible and according to the Bible or in light of its stated doctrines.
No comments:
Post a Comment