The Planned Obsolescence of Media

Media and electronic devices have a planned obsolescence. Now by media, I am excluding, in this instance, print books; I am specifically referring to when media is accessed through electronic devices, and physical audio-visual materials.

It used to be, one could go in the store, and find a physical item one was looking for. Anymore, if one does venture into the store, one is hard pressed to find a copy of what one is looking for. Instead, the retailer will tell you to order it online. Now, I came into the store to the find the item. I did not come into the store to be told to order it online. If I had, I would have done that first.

Anymore, however, the absence of items/copies of what one is looking for is pushing people to order online even if they don't want to. Sometimes, I'll ask the kind retailer (if that is his business) to order it for me directly and I'll pick it up at the store. I would rather him or her do it than me order it online, on principle's sake. I would save money if I ordered on Amazon. But I refuse to support giant techopolies whose vested commercial interest is in selling my data—and me—to outside vendors, and who are achieving world domination at a greater rate every day, digitally if not in the future physically.

To give a silly example, I went into the hardware store to find some batteries for a stopwatch that stopped working. The sales rep knew exactly what batteries they were by name/model #, however, when we got to the aisle, they were nowhere to be seen. Not only were they out of stock, but apparently, there was no place for them either. I had him order a set for me, which turned out to be around $8. However, I later looked on Amazon and I could have got them for $4.

For an old person to make such claims is a rant. For me, a young, tech-capable man who knows all about computers, programming languages, is just ludicrous. Or so they say.

I have the right to live in a world where I can find something at the store. I'm not upset that I have to order it through the store. In fact, I want to support the store, and I'd rather order through them. I am more upset by the fact that using the store is almost become the alternative option, the weird option, the backwards option.

Physical Media

It is getting hard to find physical media—CDs, DVDs, VHS, Blu-ray, Cassette tapes, LPs, LaserDiscs, and whatever other format imaginable. There was so much joy for me in finding these physical items, holding an album in my hand, poring over the liner notes. Digital doesn't cut it.

Let's say you want to watch a movie, maybe an older one. You have several options: (1) see if your local library carries it. They may or may not, but are often glad to order it for you. (2) Go to a store. The likelihood of you finding it at any store is pretty minimal. Walmart, Target etc. only have the latest releases. There are no video stores any more, so good luck with that. A pawn shop or thrift store is hit and miss. (3) Go online. Here you can try to find it on Craigslist, or maybe Amazon if you choose. Amazon will most likely have a copy listed. You can also pay Google or YouTube or Apple to stream it/rent it. I refuse to pay any money for a streamed copy of a movie that is going to buffer over my slow internet on a tiny screen. Others certainly disagree. It may be likened to attending a movie; however, a theatre is a completely different experience, namely, the anticipation of driving there, waiting in line, buying a ticket, ordering popcorn, and sitting in a darkened room with many other enjoying the same spectacle. The process of sitting at a screen may be similar, but I have not yet been willing to pay for a rented-streamed movie, whereas I'll gladly pay $12+ for a movie theatre.

The Hunt

I've been on a strange hunt. I've been searching for a MacBook (I love Macs—don't shoot me) computer with a DVD drive. Apple last made those in 2012. So I am effectively looking for a 9+ year old computer, which sounds very illogical. However, not is there not anything wrong with such computers, but they work just fine, can run the latest Mac OS, or if one wants Windows 10 or a 64-bit/32-bit Linux distro.

Apple has forced me to make it harder to watch DVDs. I am not going to stop watching DVDs any time soon, nor ripping my CD collection. So take that Apple. Yes, I can get an external drive. But I want an internal drive. So I will continue to search for my golden, DVD MacBook until the cows come home or Jesus returns. Whichever is first.

So all y'all can take the latest spotify, streaming, pay-all-your-money to Netflix and Hulu and every other company and service out there, while I'll be quietly enjoying my DVDs and records and LaserDiscs and whatever other physical media I can find. My paradise.

Hollywood vs. America by Michael Medved review

Hollywood vs. America

How many parents have struggled to find a movie that they feel comfortable taking their kids? Or children choosing a movie to watch without embarassing their parents? Former film critic Michael Medved addresses these issues in his 1992 book Hollywood vs. America.

Medved essentially shows how Hollywood continues to churn out films that reflect values and messages that fail to resonate with American citizens. These movies benefit Hollywood directors' own sense personal mission, but do even generate box office returns. Essentially, America is ignoring these movies. Because these movies appear to attack American values.

Medved organizes his Hollywood expose into five parts, divided into several categories. Medved argues that Hollywood produces movies that attack traditional values, attack religion and clergy, attack the family, attack traditional morality, and promote violence and gore.

This book is not just a scare tactic. Medved has intimate knowledge of Hollywood, having viewed a half-dozen movies every week and befriended many Hollywood elite. What is impressive is his vast array of evidence, which includes plot points from films and box office and admissions data.

For his first point, that Hollywood attacks religion, Medved trots out a plethora of priest-bashing flicks. These include The Runner Stumbles (1979), Monsignor (1982), Agnes of God (1985), Heaven Help Us (1985), The Penitent (1988), Last Rites (1988), We're No Angels (1989), Nuns on the Run (1990), The Godfather, Part III (1990), and The Pope Must Die (1991). Nearly every one of these show priests abusing their power or even murdering their parishioners -- which should be stated, the latter is not known to have happened in real life. Medved exhibits a few films that are positive towards individual clergy, but still take a dim view of church hierarchy. These ambivalent films include True Confesions (1981, Robert De Niro), Mass Appeal (1984, Jack Lemmon), The Mission (1986, Jeremony Irons and Robert De Niro), and Black Robe (1991). One could also add The Blues Brothers to this list, which depicts two men who engage on a "godly" mission but depicts horrifying nuns.

What is incredibly interesting is that Hollywood directors have no clue that faith is a large part of American life. Medved recounts how he would ask industry members at parties what percentage of people attend church or synagogue in America, and they would typically respond less than five percent. In fact, Medved points out, the number is closer to 40%, according to a January 1992 from Newsweek. Seventy-eight percent pray regularly, and more than 90% believe in a personal deity. Only 4% of Americans were totally nonreligious: religion is not a part of their lives, they do not attend church, and have no religious affiliation. When presented with this evidence, Medved explained, Hollywood literally cannot believe it, because everyone with whom they interact is irreligious as well. According to a 1983 Public Opinion survey, 45% have no religion and 93% of Hollywood seldom or never attends religious services. One television producer addmitted he did not know a single director, writer, or actor who attended church or synagogue. While these numbers have certainly changed in the thirty years since this book's publication, they show how vast the gulf between Hollywood and the rest of America. (According to 2014 survey data from the Pew Research Center, 36% of Americans attend religous services regularly, 55% of Americans pray daily, 75% of Americans identify as religious, and 25% identify as irreligious. The irreligious number has grown tremendously, while church attendance has only dropped by 4% since 1992.)

Hollywood also likes to portray Bible-believing Christians in a certain way. In Crimes of Passion (1984), Children of the Corn (1984), Poltergeist II (1986), The Vision (1987), Light of the Day (1987), Salvation! (1987), Pass the Ammo (1988), The Handmaid's Tale (1990), The Rapture (1991), At Play in the Fields of the Lord (1991), and Guilty as Charged (1992), the films portray Christians and pastors as crazed, apocalyptic murderers. Anyone who took these films seriously would have a seriously skewed view of American Protestants.

The next category that Medved examines is the family and morality. It seems that Hollywood does not show a single happily married couple. One sitcom of the 1990s, Married with Children, shows a married couple who are constantly having problems and whose love life is as passionate as geriatric bowling night. Film and television show a constant barrage of people having sex before marriage, outside of marriage, but not a single example within marriage. Medved is not trying to be a prude but wishes that Hollywood could at least show happy married couples. Contrary to the myth that 50% of people will get divorced (which was simply the number of marriages in 1981 compared to the number of divorces in that same year), 90% of all marriages survive, according to Louis Harris's 1987 book Inside America. In addition, 80% of Americans were satisfied with their marriages and would marry the same person again. When Hollywood pushes the idea that marriage is a death trap and that only sex outside of marriage and adultery is exciting, they are not reflecting the actual facts and values of American life, but their own values, which stand outside of the mainstream.

In the chapter Encouraging Illegitimacy, Medved illustrates a series of shows in which the main character not only has a baby outside of wedlock but even have babies via artificial insemination. While it is interesting for shows to explore issues like this, when it becomes so widespread in Hollywood as Medved shows that it does not present any alternatives, it starts to become suspect. When the former alternative lifestyles become mainstream, you know it's Hollywood. All sociological evidence shows that children reared in single-parent families or families without a father are more likely to fail school, commit crime, and be incarcerated, a rabid epidemic assaulting the black community. While it's fine for Hollywood to explore gritty situations, it seems irresponsible of them to only show non-nuclear and non-traditional families, which are still the minority in America.

Another idea that Hollywood presents is that kids know best. Anyone can see this principle in practically any film, it shouldn't be controversial to prove that. Basically, the parents are complete bimbos who need their children to enlighten them or show them the way. In some cases, the parents are evil and abusive. While the kids-know-best idea seems harmless, it is the cumulative effect of nearly every film without stop that corrodes American youth's respect for parents and authority (within reason, of course). In reality, most parents do know better than their children and want the best for them. Children of course teach their parents things too, but most parents truly do have their children's best interests at heart.

Finally, Hollywood makes films that seem to be anti-American in values. In 1991, the current war was the Gulf War, which was wildly popular by the vast majority of Americans. The fact that Hollywood did not have a single cinematic depiction of this war shows how out of touch Hollywood is with mainstream America. Of course it's fine to have opinions, but Hollywood would rather force anti-war messages on patriotic Americans than reflect what Americans value (patriotic heroes - this may have changed by now, with a gamut of films like American Sniper, Zero Dark Thirty, and Chris Hemsworth in 12 Strong).

Medved points out that all the films he cites which exhibited content that did not resonate with Americans were not box office successes. Put another way, Americans did not turn out for films which showed content they did not like. The few times Hollywood produced family friendly and G/PG films in this timeframe were massive successes, indicating that audiences showed up. So if Hollywood made bookoo bucks on family films and made pittances on films with rape, murder, and mayhem, the obvious question is why didn't they go where the money was?

In Part 6, Medved seeks to answer that question. He outlines the history of Hollywood and their ideas which brought them to this day. In 1922, postmaster general Will H. Hays created a code by which studios agreed to abide. The Hays Code prohibited displays of sex/nudity, obscene language, gratuitous violence, ethnic slurs, priest-bashing, and mocking any religion, among other things. In 1930, an Hays Office was established, which reviewed every film and gave it a Motion Picture Seal of approval. In 1966, however, Jack Valenti became president of the Motion Picture Assocation of America and removed the Hays Code. Finally, the embattled Hollywood directors were free from the crushing weight of the code, despite the fact that the greatest directors of the all time -- Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks, John Ford, Billy Wilder, George Cukor, Frank Capra, and Orson Welles -- produced magnificent films under the Hays Code.

Medved convincingly shows that 1966 was a pivotal year. In 1965, the Academy Award went to The Sound of Music. In 1969, it went to the X-Rated Midnight Cowboy. Intriguingly, attendance plummetted. Since 1953 (after the invasion of television), movie audience stayed fixed around 40-49 million attendees per week (before TV, in 1948, it had been at 90 million). In 1965, still under the Hays Code, attendance was at 44 million a week. In 1969, it plummeted to 17.5. What could have happened? Since then, attendance never went above 23 million (except in 1984), but stayed around 18-19 million. Attendance had effectively halved. After this, grindhouse and exploitation films, which had previously been completely sidelined, began to place elements in major Hollwyood releases. To put the data more convincingly, out of 1,010 films released between 1983 and 1989, all G films grossed a median of $17.3 million. PG titles earned a median of $13 million. For PG-13 releases, the median was at $9.3 million, and for R films, the median gross box office was $8.3 million (less than half the box office of G). What these data show is that audiences respond more favorably to films they can take the whole family to, which of course generates more ticket sales than that of a single stag going to a late-night erotic film alone.

I do not have children, so it's hard to know what movies I would allow my kids to see, but I can assure you that Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Saw II will not be allowed. I was exposed to violent films like Kill Bill and The Matrix at a young age, and I turned out okay. But what Medved shows is it's not a single movie here, a single movie there, it's the cumulative effect of all the films which reflect values which do not seem to align with the vast majority of Americans, who value traditional values (things like patriotism, respect for elders, family, treating people well). In other words, common decency. An obvious critique of Medved's work is he seems to read these films too literally. Many directors see their work as satire or political commentary or social release -- they are fantasy, and if we didn't have violent films, we would all kill each other. However, such arguments fail to take into account that vast majority of Americans are not violent and do not want to kill others (except perhaps in self-defense). Therefore, it seems irresponsible for Hollywood to be churning out films with values we do not appreciate. How many times have you had to cover your kid's eyes? (I know it's happened to me.) It would be easier if one didn't have to do that. The answer is clear: if you make movies for the whole family, the people will come. One also wonders how much has changed since 1992. I think that faith has become more prominent in Hollywood, with shows like God Friended Me. Violence has definitely increased (Inglourious Basterds, John Wick, various war movies etc.). Sex is in nearly every show or movie, so that hasn't changed. Interestingly, when you apply Medved's thesis to 2019, it holds true: the top box office hits were films that were not facile but that everyone could attend without fear of objectional content. Avengers Engdame, $858.3 million, yes it was dark, but it was still family friendly. The Lion King, $543.6 million. Toy Story 4, $434 million. Frozen II, 430.1 million. Captain Marvel, $426.8 million. Spider-Man: Far from Home. Star Wars Rise of Skywalker. Aladdin. The same could be said for 2018 (with the exception of Deadpool 2). Medved is right: build a family movie, and they will come. (However, the bigger problem here is these are all fanchises and series). Maybe what Hollywood needs is not just to merely follow family-oriented formulaes but a revival.

Book link

Sex and Marriage in the Bible

Many people seem to think that God does not care about sexual immorality. Rather, the opposite is true, he does care what goes on in the bedroom. This concern is not because he is prudish or like some cosmic Santa Claus, snooping on what we are doing, but rather because he loves his children and wants the best for us. In short, sex in marriage follows God’s law and allows God’s blessing in our lives. This article will explore some of what is said in God’s law, then the New Testament, and how it applies today.

Sex and Marriage in the Torah

God stated his instructions for life, the universe, and everything, in the Torah (Hebrew, instruction). God revealed the Torah to Moshe on Mt. Sinai after delivering the children of Israel from bondage in the land of Egypt. The Torah reveals God’s guidelines for his covenant community.

Most of what the Torah says about sex and marriage is in the books of the Torah called Leviticus and Deuteronomy, specifically chapters 18 and 22/24, respectively. Leviticus is a document that lists the cultic requirements of God’s people, that is, what God expected of those who followed him. Deuteronomy (from the Greek word meaning second law) is Moshe’s retelling and re-extrapolation of the law, right before God brought his people into the land of Israel and Canaan.

Leviticus 18

Leviticus 18 lists all the prohibited sexual relations in which God did not want his people engaging. These are listed with the formula you shall not uncover the nakedness of…. Most of these are prohibitions against incest. Among other examples of incest, God in Leviticus prohibits sex with one’s sister (and half-sister), a mother and a daughter at the same time, two sisters at the same time, a women experiencing menstruation (called niddah in Hebrew), humans and beasts, and two men sleeping together. These relations oppose God’s plan for marriage, which is stated at the end of the creation narrative in Genesis 2:4, where God states, Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. The reason God did not want his people engaging in these practices is because they violate his standard of a one-flesh union, which he designed to bring the most blessing in life. God wants people to know the relationships that will bring life.

Deuteronomy 22/24

In Moshe’s retelling of the Law in Deuteronomy 22, starting at verse 13, he divided sexual relations into several categories: a married women who was found to not be a virgin, the wife of another man, a betrothed virgin, and a single virgin. He also divided them into actions that happened in the city versus the countryside. We will go through each in turn; I will provide summaries, from which the reader can study the text for herself. One must recognize that these are hypothetical, legal situations, from which one must draw broader conclusions.

A (verses 13-21) A man marries + non-virgin girl = punish the girl.

In this unfortunate situation, the man finds that the girl he married is not a virgin. While the particular method this was found out may be barbaric, the standard which we can extrapolate from this ancient law is that God does not approve of whoring in one’s father’s house (victims of rape, abuse, assault, and incest are not in the purview of this category and God has grace on victims; any Bible preacher who claims this refers to such victims should be denounced from God’s word). God sees intentional multiple sexual partners as a violation of his standard stated in Genesis 2:4, and this passage opposes such behavior.

B (verse 22) A man + a married women = punish both.

If a man sleeps with a women married to another man, that is the definition of adultery, which is also listed in the Ten Commandments. This behavior, under Mosaic law, requires the death of both parties, so as to purge the evil from amongst you. While we may not execute adulterors today, this verse shows how seriously God considers the violation of the marriage covenant.

C (verse 23-25) A man + an engaged/betrothed virgin + in the city = punish both

The linch pin of this legal case is that a man sleeps with someone else’s fiancee in the city. The assumption is that since it happened in the city, she may have been able to cry out and halt the assault. Since she did not cry out, she must have consented. Again, this hypothetical, legal case should not be used to condemn those who were assaulted and unable to scream. Back in those days, where neighbors were close and families lived together, it must have been hard to find a truly private place; therefore, any assault would have been seen or heard rather quickly; since she did not resist or call attention in such a scenario, it must not have been an assault in the first place, but a predetermined liaison between two consenting parties. Today, with our thick walls, dense urban jungles, and dark alleys, it may be harder to draw attention to an assault.

D (verses 25-27) A man + an engaged/betrothed virgin + in the country = punish the man

This passage should clearly show that God does care about the victim of rape. In this scenario, a man rapes someone’s fiancee in the countryside. Since there was no one to hear, we cannot know whether she consented or not. Therefore, the assumption is that the action was an assault. You shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. Rather, the man is tried as a rapist.

E (verses 28-29) A man + a virgin = marry her

In this final, hypothetical case, a man finds a single virgin (that is, not betrothed or engaged to anyone). The man has violated her, whether she consented or not. If the law allowed her to marry another man, we would end up with situation A, above. Rather, the law required that the man marry her. She shall be his wife, because he has violated (others, humbled) her. He may not divorce her all his days. Lest someone say that this requires marrying one’s rapist, Jewish law required that the woman had the final say in the marriage: she could refuse him. Rather, the standard is how highly God considered the sanctity of marriage: that playing around with sexual intercourse should lead to marriage.

Practical

In ancient Israel, there were three ways to finalize a marriage. These principles were reaffirmed and stated in the tractate of Jewish law called Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1. These three are through money (i.e., a token of marriage, e.g., a ring), through contact (kesubes, with a ketubah), and through sexual intercourse (kiddushin). All three are commonly fulfilled, but only one is necessary to fulfill a binding marriage. These standards are a distillation of what God says in his word. Kiddushin comes from the Hebrew word kadosh, or sanctified, set apart, or holy. Sex is so holy that it sets the couple apart as a unified whole. God considers sex as so sacred that it binds two people together (this can be inferred from Gen. 2:4, as well as situation E, above). When two people have sex, they are bound. Since in God’s eyes, bound people are married, therefore, they should formally and legally recognize it.

In early America and England, pastors to finalize a marriage were in short supply. A couple would want to get married, and declare their intentions to the local community (usually posted as the banns on the church door, and left up for three weeks for anyone to see). Since the vicar only came by once a year, the community would allow the couple to live in marriage until the vicar solemnified the covenant that was already sanctified by the sexual act. This was a legal marriage in the eyes of the community, and in the eyes of God, because it was understood that this covenant was a commitment and not just having sex to break up a week later. This was a serious and completely binding marriage. The old Christmas song mentions this custom: In the meadow we can build a snowman Then pretend that he is Parson Brown He’ll say, Are you married?, we’ll say, No, man But you can do the job when you’re in town. This song reflects the practice of how the vicar/parson/or priest would finalize the unions that had already been consented to in the community.

In Scottish common law, also based on Biblical principles, a man and a woman could declare their love and commitment to each other, and then have sex. Church law (canon law) recognized this practice, known as handfasting, as a valid and sanctified marriage. (However, even though the Catholic church allowed the practice, they disapproved of it, wanting to maintain control over marriage.) In Kiddushin, a couple can be married by having sex; the same idea is found in the Scottish common law practice of handfasting.

There are many couples today who are living together and not married. The difference between such cohabitating unions and Kiddushin (God’s standard), is that in the former there is no clear commitment to covenant. People can break up and move in and out at will. There may be some couples who say vows to each other with this intention of commitment, which would be seen by God as valid, but most probably do not have that sacred understanding; then the question is, Why not just get married? In our modern society, if two people want to have sex and live their lives together, there are no reasons to not get married. In fact, there are many financial incentives, including tax reasons, to be a married couple. In addition, a marriage provides a sort of insurance policy that the person won’t just leave you, although this understanding is being eroded by divorce and adultery, which is all the more reason to have a sacred understanding of marriage, as God reveals in his word.

In modern (American) society, a marriage is solidified with two things. Spiritually/emotionally and legally. Spiritually, a couple exchange vows; and then legally, they receive a marriage license from the local authorities. God sees the marriage as valid without the legal license, but society does not, and there is no reason to not get the license. Some libertarians would maintain that government cannot authorize a marriage, but I see it as government sealing an action that the couple and God have already sealed. However, one should see that step as less of a government intrusion and more of a reflection of the Kiddushin practice of money and contract, which finalize a marriage. There are precious few reasons why a couple should not get a marriage license, and convenience and cohabitation is not one of them. Even in this time of covid, when people cannot gather, it is beautiful to see couples going to the local courthouse and clerk to get married. Their commitment to marriage is admirable. And, of course, the wedding ceremony is not necessary; but it is a nice time for people to recognize the already binding marriage (many couples sign the legal license during the wedding, which may be seen as a parallel to the ketubah; Jewish couples sign a license and a ketubah).

Sex and marriage in the New Testament

If you only think such ideas were for ancient times, let me tell you that Jesus and the New Testament re-affirm the godly principles of marriage revealed in the Torah.

Jesus himself said that if anyone looks at a woman with lustful intent, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. This extremely high standard shows how serious God takes the sanctity of marriage. Mere lust is a violation of marriage. Jesus’s statements are deliberately hyperbolic to prove a point.

One of Jesus’s follower, Rabbi Shaul (his Roman name was Paulus or Paul), taught that sex bound a couple together. In his epistle to the kehille (community) at Corinth, Shaul wrote:

don’t you know that he who is joined to (holds fast to) a prostitute (pornei) becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, The two shall become one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from porneia (harlotry, sexual immorality). Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

Paul knew that sex binds, it’s not just bodies, it involves one’s soul as well, and that binding oneself to a prostitute was a spiritual act of binding souls. He drew the analogy between uniting with the Lord and uniting with a prostitute; both are spiritual acts. God wants us to be bound in soul to him, not bound in soul to prostitution. Paul knew the one-flesh teaching of Genesis and taught it from heart.

In a letter to the kehille of Jewish Christians (Hebrews), Paul taught that God considered the marriage bed with utmost regard.

Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the pornei (sexually immoral) and the adulterous.

Lest people think that God does not, Paul taught that he did and that God would judge the immoral, just as the Torah of Moshe required that people be punished for violating these standards.

Conclusion

God considers sexual immorality a problem for two reasons. Marriage is the foundation of society, and two, it is a symbol of God’s relationship with his people. God wants human societies to flourish, and upholding marriage is the best way to do so. People cohabiting leads to break ups, broken hearts, and does not contribute to economic security and the secure upbringing of children. Only a secure marriage can do that. Secondly, marriage between humans is a reflection of God’s marriage to his people. God does not want his people "whoring" with other gods and idols; he wanted a monogamous union with himself. Violating God’s standards of marriage is ultimately violating God himself. As a couple are bound together in marriage, planning to never leave each other, so God plans to never leave or forsake us. He gave us a wedding covenant (the rabbis state that the Torah was his ketubah), and he promises to take care of us. The wedded relationship is a symbol of what God did for us. And if you find yourself in a different standard than this, know that God is eager to take you in and is only a prayer away. These laws were not from a prudish god, but were designed for our benefit, so that we could live life with God and each other in a state of human flourishing.

Parshas Aḥarei Mot: Enter the Void

For the third time in a row, the Jewish community reads Parshas Aḥarei Mot, Leviticus 16–18. This parsha describes how YHWH (ʾAdonai) explains to Moshe a ritual for Rosh Hashanah. Every year, the priest was to take two goats. The text describes one goat as designated for YHWH and the other goat as designated for ʿAzazel. The priest would cast lots for which designation the goat would receive. The lucky goat would then be sacrificed to YHWH as a sin offering, whereas the unlucky goat would be led into the wilderness and pushed off a cliff onto the jagged rocks below. This second goat shall be set alive before the LORD, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:10, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, 1917).

No one really knows what ʿAzazel means. Traditional English translations translate it as scapegoat following William Tyndale's idea. The ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew (a translation called the Septuagint) translated it as one carrying away evil (Greek apopompaios). However, the Hebrew has a clear parallelism between the lot designated for YHWH and the other for ʿAzazel, indicating that ʿAzazel is a personal entity.

In fact, ancient literature bears out the idea that it was a personal entity. In the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which was written before the time of Jesus, ʿAzazel appears as the name of one of the fallen angels. Apparently, the writer of the Hebrew text understood ʿAzazel to be some sort of demonic entity.

For that reason, most modern English translations no longer translate it as scapegoat, but as Azazel, the name the Hebrew text uses. Apparently, the Hebrews believed that one goat was dedicated to God while the other was given over to a demonic presence that abided in the wilderness.

The ritual consisted of the priest offering a bull as a sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering for himself; the priest offered the two goats on behalf of the Israelite community. The priest is to let the Azazel-goat left standing before the LORD, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel (Leviticus 16:10, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, 1999). The Hebrew reads: yaʿamad-ḥai lifnei ʾAdonai kaper alaiv. Leshalaḥ ʾoto laʿAzazel hamidbarah, literally, standing before YHWH to cover upon it. To send it to Azazel in the wilderness. The Hebrew word kaper, literally translated by English cover, indicates that the goat atoned for the sins of the Israelite people. That same word can be translated into English as atonement and, more fancily, as expiation. Basically, the idea is that the sin is removed so that God no longer sees sin, but purity, so the relationship between God and humanity is repaired and made at-one. Through a symbolic, ritual action, the goat bore their sins into the wilderness, outside the camp, so they no longer had to deal with them and could commune with God.

Later in the passage, we read that the priest was to take the Azazel-goat (after slaughtering the bull offering on his own behalf) and recite all of Israel's sins onto the goat. The text describes the ritual like this: Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated man. Thus shall the goat carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness (Leviticus 16:21–22, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, 1999). This goat becomes the sin-goat, bearing all the sins of the people into the wilderness, where Azazel dwells. By symbolically removing the sin and ritual impurity from the camp, the goat allows the camp to be a place of holiness, where God can then dwell. Now that their sins had been taken away, the next parsha of Leviticus expands on the idea of being God's holy people.

Since this reading falls on Pesach as well as Good Friday and Easter, I find an interesting parallel with this goat and Jesus. Just as the goat was led out of the camp into the wilderness, so Jesus was sacrificed outside the camp. In fact, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes this same point. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate, the writer wrote, in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured (Hebrews 13:13–14, English Standard Version). Just as the Azazel-goat carried the sins of the Israelite people outside the camp, so Jesus as the lamb of God took away all the sins of the people outside the walls of Jerusalem.

Since the camp, for the Israelites, had to be a place of holiness, where no ritual impurity resided (this parsha is followed by Kedoshim, Holy People), and also the reasons menstruants and people with other flows had to leave the camp, so also the goat of sacrifice had to be outside the camp. Jesus was sacrificed outside the city walls of Jerusalem, thus not giving the city ritual impurity through blood-letting. Just as the goat effected expiation for the inhabitants of the camp, so Jesus's sacrifice to YHWH effected expiation for the inhabitants of Jerusalem and his followers. May the story of the Azazel-goat inspire us to continue our process of at-one-ment with God.

On Jewish Identity

The single greatest threat to Jewish identity is intermarriage. I do not hope to sound like a fear-monger, but this assertion is true. If a Jewish person intermarries, the likelihood that the children will be raised Jewish reduces considerably.

In Jewish law, a Jew is someone with a Jewish mother. If your mom is not a Jewess, then you are not a Jew. Jewish identity does not depend upon the father, only the mother. So if a Jewess marries a goy male, their children will be Jewish. If that male Jewish child, in turn, marries a goy female, then their children are no longer Jewish. In order for the next generation to be Jewish, the man must marry a Jewess.

The reason for this legislation is obvious. Children spend more of the time with their mothers and so the religion of the mother will more likely pass down to the next generation, even with a goyishe father. I know a Jewish man who married a goyishe woman, and the children were not raised Jewish. Sadly, these individuals have, through intermarriage, cut themselves off from the Jewish community, whether they intended to or not. If they wish to return to Judaism, they may and are encouraged to do so, but it is sad that they have lost their Jewish heritage so easily.

There is a precedent for matrilineal descent in the Torah. After the Jews were re-allowed entry into the land of Israel by King Cyrus in 538 BCE, the high priest Ezra found that the Israelite males had intermarried with foreign women. He and the governors of the land understood that marrying non-Jewish women was a problem because the children would not be raised Jewish and to fear the Lord. The governors told Ezra, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass (Ezra 9:1-2). Ezra discovered that the Israelite men had sinned by marrying foreign wives.

Accordingly, Ezra told the men to divorce their non-Jewish wives. Ezra 10:10-11, KJV, reads, And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. Ezra then instituted court proceedings so that they could divorce their non-Jewish wives in an orderly fashion. It took them two months to process all of the divorce claims (10:16-17). Even the priests had intermarried, and they too had to divorce their non-Jewish women. All these had taken strange women, and they put them away with their children (English Standard Version marginal note, Ezra 10:44). Accordingly, they divorced them.

In 445 BCE, the reformer Nehemiah faced the same problem a century later. While walking around Israel, he discovered that the Jewish men had married goyishe girls.

In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives? (Nehemiah 13:23-27 KJV

Nehemiah clearly thought that intermarriage with goyishe women was a big deal, enough that he exerted physical violence over those men. Whether such violence was warranted, Nehemiah believed that marrying Jewish, godly women was of utmost importance. Additionally, Nehemiah saw that the children were not being educated as Jews and were taught goyishe practices, such as idolatry, from their non-Jewish mothers.

A critical observer may point out that King David was descended from a goyishe girl, Ruth the Moabitess. However, it must be pointed that Ruth the Moabitess joined herself to Israel and therefore converted to Judaism (before converstion to Judaism became standardized). She was no longer a goyishe girl, but an Israelite maiden. Naomi told Ruth to return to her Moabite homeland. However, Ruth refused and joined herself to Israel. And [Naomi] said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me. When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her (Ruth 1:15-18 KJV). Ruth joined herself to Israel and then became a naturalized Jewish citizen.

Someone might say that Torah forbids Moabites and Ammonites from joining Israel. Indeed, it does. Deuteronomy 23:3-6, KJV, says, An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever: Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. Nevertheless the LORD thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the LORD thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the LORD thy God loved thee. Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. However, the Hebrew word (a masculine singular) indicates that male Moabites and Ammonites are in view. The word used for Ruth the Moabitess is the feminine singular. Therefore, Ruth was not prohibited from joining Israel and converting to Judaism. Hopefully, one can see that from the Torah, it is true that the women are the ones who confer Jewish identity and it is not an extrabiblical invention that the rabbis made up. Rather, it is a faithful practice to God's commands.

The Violence of Jesus

Jesus is commonly seen as a pacifist, and in a popular American perception, as a peace-loving hippie. However, in a shocking break from this pacifistic image, Jesus himself exhibits behavior and words which suggest the opposite. Many are familiar with the time when Jesus angrily overthrew the tables of the money changers in the temple, but this can easily be explained away as an expression of righteous indignation against turning God's house into a house of greed, not as an expression of a non-pacificist ethic. However, in Luke's Gospel, Jesus himself says the opposite. He says that he came not to bring peace to the world, but rather to bring division. While many commentators also explain this passage so that it accords with their peaceful vision of Jesus, this article will show that Jesus's vision was much more complex, incorporating both peaceful and non-peaceful elements, indicating that he cannot be seen as a simple pacifist solely.

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus gives a message similar to the second half of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. The following synopsis covers his main points:

do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow has enough worries; look at the lilies of the field how they grow neither toil nor spin, but even Solomon was not arrayed as one of these; consider the ravens of the sky who do not sow nor reap; don't worry about what you will eat, for your father knows what you need; only seek God's kingdom and all these things will be added unto you; make your treasure in the heavens, where no thief comes in and no moth destroys; where your treasure is there also will be your heart.

This message is similar to what Jesus says in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, indicating not to worry, and using pastoral and idyllic images to convey his point. One has a peaceful feeling after reading it.

After exhorting his Jesus to have their treasures in heaven, Jesus gives a parable. He says,

Let your loins be girded about and the lamps burning
and be like people waiting for their master
when he comes back from the wedding,
so that when he comes and knocks they will open for him at once.
Blessed are the slaves whom the lord
on his return finds wide awake.
Amain, I tell you, he will gird himself up
and have them recline to eat and he will come near
and he will serve them.
And if he comes in the second watch or third watch
and finds them alert, they will be blessed.
But know this. If the master of the house
knew what time the thief was coming,
he would not have let his house be broken into.
Be ready, for the earthly son [son of man] comes
in the hour when you least expect him.

(Luke 12:35-40, Willis Barnstone translation).

One gets an ominous sensation from reading this. No longer is Jesus discussing ravens and lilies and treasures, but slaves, thieves, and night. The slaves, meaning Jesus's disciples, must wait for the master (Jesus) to return from the wedding. They have to be alert so that the moment he comes, they can open the door to him. If he finds them awake, he will feed and serve them at table. The reference to the thief coming in the night indicates that Jesus might return at any time, but that his disciples also have to be ready at all and any times, because he will come when you least expect him.

It is certainly confusing and ominous, and his disciple Simon Peter understandably asks, Lord, is your parable for us or do you speak to everyone?

This is when things get weird. Instead of directly answering Peter, Jesus responds with an extension to the previous parable, mystifying (yet also clarifying) matters more. Jesus says that the blessed slave is the one whom the master finds working when he comes. The master will put that slave in charge of all his possession. But, however,

if that slave says in his heart, My master is long in coming, and he begins to beat the men servants and women servants, and to eat and to drink and to get drunk, the lord of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect and in an hour which he does not know, and cut him to pieces and cast him out with the unfaithful

(Luke 12:45-46).

Did you catch that? Jesus says he will cut his disciples to pieces if they shirk their duties. So much for the serene savior. Jesus means business and is not afraid to threaten people with death if they do not follow him.

He then furthers the parable with an explanation. That slave who knows the master's will but who is not prepared or flaunts his own will will be flogged with many blows. But the one who knows nothing and does what merits a whipping will be flogged lightly. Everyone to whom much is given will have much to return. To whom much was entrusted, even more they will ask from him (Luke 12:47-48). The principle is one of reciprocity: if you have a lot of responsibility, it demands a lot of responsibility. Jesus gives his disciples much responsibility and demands accordingly much work from them. If the disciple knows what Jesus wants and does not do it, or decides to do his own thing, then Jesus will give him many lashes. If the disciple does not know what Jesus wants and wastes time, he will receive a few lashes. Hardly if ever is Jesus portrayed as an executioner or as a punisher, but that is how he portrays himself. Jesus the punisher — does not exactly roll off the tongue.

So far, we have seen Jesus cut his disciples to pieces and whip them. Surely it's over. But nope, Jesus continues. He says,

Fire I came to throw upon the earth,
and how I wish it were already ablaze! (Luke 12:49).

Πῦρ ἦλθον βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν,
καὶ τί θέλω εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη.

This time, Jesus casts himself as the fire-bearer, puropheros in Greek, or the fire-thrower, puroballos. Although some commentators might argue that fire here refers to the power of the Holy Spirit; however, the context here is completely different. In the Old Testament, fire simply means fire, the substance that burns things up. In the prophetic books, fire often has the significance of destruction and the last days. Therefore, this fire Jesus references is the cleansing fire of God's wrath and judgment upon the earth, riding all evil in one fell swoop. So not only does Jesus cut and whip, he also brings fire. Surely, it's over.

Next, Jesus states:

I have a baptism to be baptized,
and how I am afflicted until it is finished! (Luke 12:50).

βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχω βαπτισθῆναι,
καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως ὅτου τελεσθῇ.

This baptism, or dipping or immersion, seems out of place in the context, but it must refer to Christ's crucifixion, metaphorically. The contrast of fire and water is striking—surely, fire is more triumphant and destructive, but water puts out fire. Does this mean that Jesus's mercy, by undergoing crucifixion on behalf of all humanity, outweighs his fire-throwing judgment? Just when we think that Jesus might be peaceful, he tells us the opposite.

Do you think that I came to bring peace on earth?
No, I tell you, I came to bring division!
From now on there will be five in one house
dissenting against two and two against three.
Father will be divided against son and son against father,
mother against daughter and daughter against mother,
mother-in-law against daughter-in-law
and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.(Luke 12:51-53).

δοκεῖτε ὅτι εἰρήνην παρεγενόμην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ;
οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ διαμερισμόν.
ἔσονται γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν πέντε ἐν οἴκῳ ἑνὶ
διαμεμερισμένοι τρεῖς ἐπὶ δυσὶν καὶ δύο ἐπὶ τρισίν,
διαμερισθήσεται πατὴρ ἐφ᾽ υἱῷ καὶ υἱὸς ἐπὶ πατρί,
μήτηρ ἐπὶ θυγατρί καὶ θυγάτηρ ἐπὶ μητρί,
πενθερὰ ἐπὶ τὴν νύμφην αὐτῆς
καὶ νύμφη ἐπὶ τὴν πενθεράν αὐτῆς.

Jesus himself says he did not come to bring peace, but division. His purpose was not peace, but the breakdown of families. Previously, he said he brings fire. His purpose was to kindle a fire upon the earth and destroy families. Not quite the PC and PG-rated Jesus that we have in our minds.

Some commentators take this statement about family to mean that believing in him will cause families to dissent. While that may be a secondary meaning of Jesus's words, the primary meaning is that he himself brings division. Also, few readers (myself included) recognized Jesus is quoting from the prophetic books of the Bible. As I stated before, the prophetic books often discuss destruction and the last days, although not exclusively. The quote in question, from Micah, discusses this theme.

In the book of Micah, the prophet addresses the people of Israel and Judah as to why God exiled them from the land of Israel. He says it is for their transgressions. In chapter 7, Micah demonstrates the social disintegration that comes presumably near the last days. Jesus quotes from this context of social disintegration.

Micah says,

The pious are vanished from the land,
none upright are left among men;
all lie in wait to commit crimes,
one traps the other in his net.
They are eager to do evil:
the magistrate makes demands,
and the judge [judges] for a fee;
the rich man makes his crooked plea,
and they grant it.
The best of them is like a prickly shrub;
the [most] upright, worse than a barrier of thorns.
On the day you waited for, your doom has come&emdash;
now their confusion shall come to pass.
Trust no friend,
rely on no intimate;
be guarded in speech
with her who lies in your bosom.
For son spurns father,
daughter rises up against mother,
daughter-in-law against mother-in-law&emdash;
a man's own household
are his enemies.
Yet I will look to the LORD,
I will wait for the God who saves me,
my God will hear me.

(Micah 7:2-7, Jewish Publication Society Translation).

Jesus brings division to the earth, not peace, and this division is best illustrated by the picture of familial and societal disintegration that Micah describes. Jesus quotes from a section that describes how evil humans are to each other. Jesus says that his arrival heralds this sort of division and dissension. Jesus brings societal disintegration to the world. It is unclear whether Jesus encourages this behavior—when other times he says to turn your cheek and think of others more highly than oneself—or he simply describes what humans are like to each other. He knows humanity and he knows his arrival will cause this dissension. Perhaps the fire he wishes to cast over the earth is the fire that destroys the evil ways of humanity so that this behavior is obliviated. But still, we have to wrestle with what Jesus meant when he said he came in order to bring division and fire, not peace.

An easy answer is that Jesus sees himself as a prophet and herald of the eschaton, the end times or last days. He heralds the end times, and that is why he quotes this destructive imagery from the prophets. His arrival brings the end of the world, including the mayhem and destruction surrounding him. Then, we have an image of Jesus as in Robert Oppenheimer's words, I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. Jesus the destroyer and destruction-bringer. Again, not a common perception of the suffering savior. However, since he says it, we must accept it.

After this disturbing discourse, Jesus addresses the crowds this time. He says that when you see a cloud, you know that rain is coming; and when a south wind blows you say it will be will hot. You hypocrites! he exclaims.

The face of the earth and the sky you know
how to read. But why don't you know how to read
these times? Why don't you judge on your own
what is right? As you go with your opponent
to the magistrate, try on the way there
to reconcile with him, or you may be dragged
before the judge, and the judge will hand you
over to the bailiff and the bailiff throw you
in jail. I tell you, you will never get out
of there until you pay back the last penny

(Luke 12:55-59). In this completely obscure passage, Jesus discusses how the people can assess the weather, but they cannot assess these times. These times must be a reference to the eschaton, the end times. In these times, families are divided, magistrates draw people into jail, and no one can trust each other. In another passage, Jesus says to be as gentle as doves and as cunning as serpents. I think the idea here is that one ought to do whatever they can to escape trouble. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Just as in Micah, the magistrate makes demands and charges a fee for justice, so Jesus here tells the crowds to settle with their accuser so that they don't have to pay a hefty legal fee. Do whatever you need to do to avoid jail, apparently in a time when people are thrown into jail for a pittance.

In the next chapter, some crowds tell Jesus how the ruling governor Pilate mixed the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices, a very gruesome end indeed. Jesus's response is callous at best:

Do you think these Galileans, because
they suffered this way, were the worst sinners
of all the Galileans? No, I tell you,
but unless you repent you will all perish
like them, or like those eighteen when the tower
of Shiloach fell on them and killed them.
Do you think they were more guilty than the people living in Yerushalayim?
No, I tell you, but unless you repent
you will all likewise perish too just as they all did

(Luke 13:2-5). Jesus turns the fateful end of fellow Israelites into a proselytizing moment condemning all the crowd. They weren't worse sinners that it happened to them; it just happened, and it will happen to you if you don't repent.

Jesus is capable of incredible tenderness, such as with the woman who used her hair to wash his feet and the woman found in adultery whom he refused to condemn. But at other times he is capable of and promises violence. The kingdom of God suffers violence and violent men take it by force. While in his final moments, Jesus did not use violence against his captors and crucifiers, he expected nonviolence from his followers, but himself exemplified violent acts and imagery. He brought violence upon the earth or at least did not minimize it. He promises to cut down his servants, whip them, throw fire on the earth, bring division to families and the world, and that people will perish randomly. Some of these occurrences are endemic to what it means to be human in this world (e.g., a freak tower falling on you and crushing you; rivalry and strife between humans), but others like Jesus bringing division and fire is completely his doing. At times, Jesus expresses nonviolence, but especially in Luke chapters 12 and 13, Jesus exemplifies violence. Jesus is both violent and non-violent. Like any human, who is more complex than any one categorization, Jesus transcends simple labels. Jesus is not some prosaic, serene sage floating on a cloud whose feet never touched the ground. Jesus had the full range of emotions, from anger and outrage to happiness, joy, sadness, and tears, and everything in between. Jesus is way more complex than our cardboards cut-outs of him and our serene images of him. In fact, if he saw them he would certainly cast fire upon them. If Jesus returns and finds us wasting our time and doing our own thing, he will certainly punish.

Sources:

The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Barnstone, Willis. The Restored New Testament: A New Translation with Commentary. W. W. Norton: London, 2009.

KATA LOUKAN (Luke) 12:49 (TR) -. Blue Letter Bible. Accessed 25 Jun, 2018. https://www.blueletterbible.org/tr/luk/12/49/t_conc_985053

Nestle-Aland 28. Bibelwissenschaft http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/online-bibeln/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/lesen-im-bibeltext/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/52/120001/129999/ch/21a6a2579fc242e2f916bfc762013b4d/

In the Beginning: Torah and Commandments

Many people think that Godʼs commands were introduced at Sinai for the first time. Mt Sinai is where Moses told Godʼs Torah (instruction and teaching) to the people of Israel after rescuing them from Egypt. Many believe that these commandments were introduced for the first time at Sinai, as if they were an innovation and unheard-of. One may wonder, what about the people beforehand, who had not such knowledge? If the commandments were introduced so late in history, they must not be very important. One could reason similar to how St. Paulʼs epistle to the Galatians is interpreted, namely, that after the Torah came, people were brought into a slavish obeisance to rote commandments, but that before the Torah, people were free and lived only by faith and the promise of Abraham. This post seeks to show that such an understanding is not the understanding that the Bible itself presents.

Rather, Godʼs commandments were introduced at the beginning of creation. I will show this understanding by going to the Book of Genesis. I myself am very surprised by this and it is a learning curve for me. I am not going to argue that God taught all 613 mitzvoth of the Torah to humanity from the beginning—only that he taught some before Sinai. The only way to refute these observations of Scripture would be to deny any validity to the historical veracity of Genesis. Those who have already done so will have no issue with this post, but those that take the Bible seriously may need to rethink their understandings of Scripture (as do I).

1. Sabbath

   The Sabbath is taught from the beginning. Genesis 2:2-3, KJV, says: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. God rested on the Sabbath during the first week of the world and, likewise, taught Adam and Eve and the first humans to do so. Sabbath is not some man-made burden, but rather an essential part of the cycle of the universe, such as winter and weather and gravity. Sabbath comes every 7 days and it is our choice to partake in it or not.

2. Holy Days and Festivals

   On the fourth day of creation, God introduced holy days (holidays) and festivals. In Genesis 1:14, it says that God created lights in the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. The word that the King James translators rendered seasons is Hebrew moʿedim. Moʿedim is the word that the Hebrew Bible uses for all the festivals of Israel, such as Passover, Shavuot, Sukkot, and Yom Kippur. Shabbat is also a moʿed. Moʿed can mean meeting, and often refers to the ʾohel moʿed, the Tent of Meeting. The word basically means the appointed time and place of meeting with God.

3. Clean and Unclean Animals

   If clean and unclean animals were introduced first in Leviticus 11 at Mount Sinai, then why do they appear in Genesis 7? If the distinction was not introduced until millennia later, then how could God have expected Noah to have known the difference? Apparently, God taught humanity clean and unclean animals from an early time. Genesis 7:2-3, ESV, says, Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. Noah took seven pairs of clean animals and only one pair of unclean animals onto the ark. Even if Noah himself did not drag the animals onto the ark, he still would have known which were clean and unclean.

4. Dietary Restrictions

   The first dietary restrictions may not have been kashrut, but there were dietary restrictions. And from 3, above, we know that early humanity knew about clean and unclean animals. It is interesting that the first dietary restriction that God imposed upon humankind was to eat only plants. In Genesis 1:29-30, KJV, God tells humanity,

   Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

   God gave plants to humans and animals alike to eat. Humanity was vegetarian until after the flood. After the flood, God tells humanity that they can now eat meat: every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat (Genesis 9:3-4, KJV). But God adds even though you can eat meat, you cannot eat blood. This restriction is the foundation of kashrut, which requires that humans drain the blood out of the animals they kill before they eat it. God tells Noah and humanity they cannot eat meat with blood in it, and he had already told Noah the clean and unclean animals, so that means that God expected Noah and the rest of the humans to eat essentially kosher.

5. Murder

   That murder is a sin to any human anywhere is pretty obvious. But it does not hurt to say that murder was not condemned for the first time in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 19). In Genesis 9, after mentioning the blood of animals, God tells humanity that human blood is also sacred and should not be spilled. God says: Whoso sheddeth manʼs blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man (Genesis 9:6, KJV). One can also discern Godʼs hatred of murder from the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. After Cain murdered Abel, God said to Cain: What hast thou done? the voice of thy brotherʼs blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brotherʼs blood from thy hand (Genesis 4:10-11, KJV). God condemned Cainʼs murdering of his brother. Murder and hatred was also one of the reasons that God flooded the world: The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence (Genesis 6:11, KJV).

6. Sexual Immorality

   God expected all humanity to live by his standards of sexual immorality that he later re-stated at Sinai. From Genesis 2:24, we know that God expects humans to get married and not have sex with everyone, the implication of the one flesh phraseology. Genesis 2:24, KJV, states: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. In fact, it was because humanity was being corrupted sexually that God brought the flood on the earth, in addition to their murderous ways. Genesis 6:2 tells us that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. These sons of God were marrying the daughters of men, and Godʼs response to this situation was to destroy humanity because they had corrupted their way on the earth. Whatever was happening, humans were not following Godʼs commandments regarding sexuality.

   And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (Genesis 6:3, 5-7, KJV).

7. Idolatry

   One would think that if Godʼs commandments were only for a certain group of people, he would not care if other people did not follow him. An interesting note made in the Hebrew text is that then began men to call upon the name of the LORD (Genesis 4:26). If something is mentioned in the Bible, it means itʼs important. This act was important to God. It says humans began calling upon His name. A Hebrew tradition has it that it means they began blaspheming his name at this point in history. Whether it means humanity began worshipping God or blaspheming him, apparently God thinks it important that everybody does so and not have idols instead of him.

8. Tithing

   An interesting observation is if tithing was only introduced in the Mosaic law, why did Abram give a tithe? The word tithe literally means a tenth. God required a tenth of the income of the Israelites, but why would Abram do so 400 years before God introduced the Torah? In Genesis 14, after Abram fights a battle, he presents to the priest of ʾEl ʾElyon (God Most High) a tenth of his assets. And he gave him tithes of all (Genesis 14:20). The later book of Leviticus describes this system of tithing to the priests, but apparently, Abraham knew about tithing to the priests a half-milliennium earlier. But the tithe goes back even in earlier than Abraham — back to Cain and Abel. Cain and Abel brought offerings to the Lord because they knew that he required their tithes. Genesis 4:3-4, KJV, states: And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. Intriguingly, the Hebrew reads literally, And it was, from the end of days, Cain brought from the fruit of the soil a minchah for Adonai. The end of days here means the end of the assigned time period, whether of the year or of the festival. Minchah is the Hebrew word that is used in Torah for an offering, so it is clear that Cain brought a tithe offering to Adonai. Abel, likewise, brought the bekorah for Adonai as a tithe. The system of bringing God the firstfruits (later codified in the Torah) was existent from the days of Cain and Abel.

9. Levirate Marriage

   Levirate marriage was also instructed from an early day, not just in Deuteronomy 25 for the first time. Also known in Hebrew as yibum, levirate marriage is when a man marries his deceased brotherʼs wife (levirate from Latin levir, brother-in-law). The reasoning behind this law was to ensure that a manʼs family name and inheritance would not end. His posterity must continue, so the brother provided children on his behalf by marrying his widowed wife. This situation can be seen in Genesis 38, which is an exceedingly interesting story for many reasons. There was a man named Judah who had three sons: ʿEr, ʾOnan, and Shelach. Judah married ʿEr to the woman Tamar, but ʿEr was evil in the eyes of Adonai; and Adonai killed him (Genesis 38:7). As a result, his brother ʾOnan had to marry Tamar to provide children in ʿErʼs name. Accordingly,

   Judah said unto ʾOnan, Go in unto thy brotherʼs wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And ʾOnan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also (Genesis 38:8-10, KJV).

   Basically, ʿOnan did not want to give his brother children so he ejaculated on the ground instead of impregnating Tamar. God was so enraged that ʾOnan did not obey his commandment of yibum that he slew him.

These are all the commandments I will discuss today, but aside from the last one (which was only commanded after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the patriarchs of the Jewish people), it is clear that God expects these commandments of all humanity. I say that because if he gave them to all humanity, it would follow that he expects them to keep it. It is important to note that the chosen people did not emerge until Abraham, so that means that all the times before Abraham, God was speaking to everybody. Especially in regards to Noah, because according to the biblical understanding of history, Noah is the ancestor of everybody because everybody before had died in the flood. Noah was the only one to survive (with his family), so everyone is descended from him.

The mitzvoth of Shabbat, kashrut, moʿedim, murder, sexual immorality, idolatry, and tithing (giving God his due as the source of all bounty and blessing and recognizing him alone) were given to all humans and apparently God expected them to keep it. This next statement is my own hypothesis. I have always wondered why Israel was called the light to the gentiles. That phrase expects that the gentiles ought to learn from Israel and imitate them because they are following God correctly. Here is my hypothesis: God gave some of the Torah commandments to all humanity at the beginning. However, over time, he realized that they were not obeying. So at Noahʼs time, he wiped them out with a flood to start over. Afterwards, humanity still was not obeying. Accordingly, he decided to call Abraham and his descendants to keep the Torah. It took some years, but eventually, Abrahamʼs descendants, the Israelites and Jews, accepted the Torah and continue to revere it to this day. So: at first, God gave the Torah to everybody; they did not keep it; so he gave it to Israel, in order to show everybody else how they should act.

The Torah was not some innovation at Mt. Sinai. Rather, it existed eternally with God before creation and then he revealed parts of it to the first humans. Later, he fully revealed it to Israel. Nevertheless, the Torah is not slavish legalism, but rather the way God expects and hopes all people to live.

Postscript. I am not intending to be legalistic or judaizing. I am merely sharing my knowledge as I have come to learn it. If you disagree, please feel free to comment and hopefully we can have a fruitful discussion. The conclusions of this article are just as shocking to me as they are to you.