Here's a pretty terrific collection of ethical laws, in no obvious order, and many of them borrowed from other texts. It's like a greatest hits of ethical legal statements. And, oh yeah, it culminates with the golden rule.
It's probably worth saying that the golden rule is known as such only because of Jesus (or, for my Jews, Hillel). There's nothing in H, or anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, to denote it as any more special or important than any other law.
Is it more special? It's certainly broader, and in that sense more useful. But it doesn't override any others - or if it does, that's an interpretive choice, not one dictated by the Bible itself. In an alternate universe, another law could have become "the golden rule."
So we should just keep in mind that "the golden rule" isn't a biblical thing (at least, it isn't a Hebrew Bible thing). It's a name given to a law that was deemed central in the history of interpretation, but not in the text itself. It's not a real thing.
I want to quickly just point out where all these laws come from, so we get a sense of the curatorial work being done here. Leaving the edges of the field and the fallen fruit of the vineyard for the poor and stranger (19:9-10) - that's Deut 24:19-22.
Not stealing, or lying, or swearing falsely by YHWH's name (19:11-12)? That's awfully Decalogue-like, which suggests that H is taking the Decalogue and breaking it up and interweaving it with other laws. Which says something about the status of the Decalogue for H.
Note that here, again, H translates the Decalogue into its own language and terms. The language of not dealing falsely with one another in 19:11 is borrowed not from the Decalogue, but from the ritual law of P, in Lev 5:21. Same with swearing falsely in 19:12 - see Lev 6:5.
Defrauding and robbing one's neighbor (19:13) - some of the language is from P, from Lev 5:21 and 23, but some isn't, like תלין, to keep overnight, which never appears in P, but is in both E and D laws. And Deut 24:14 seems an obvious source here.
Fair judgment (19:15), that's right out of the Covenant Code, Exod 23:1-3. Lots of borrowing here. But - also some innovations, and pretty famous ones, too.
Stumbling blocks in front of the blind? Don't hate your neighbor? No vengeance or grudge? THE GOLDEN RULE? All pure H.
H has, in other words, gathered together ethical legal statements from prior texts, and added to them its own (usually even broader) pronouncements, and collected it all under the label of "holiness" and "I am YHWH." It's a nice collection - and we're not done with it yet.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Goats and sheep, corn and peas, wool and cotton: whatever you do, don’t mix them together. After the most beloved law in the Bible comes this, one of the most often ignored, even disdained. But remember: they’re equally biblical.
This law may be hard to understand on a practical level, but it’s pretty consistent with the overall priestly concern for categories and boundaries and definitions. Creation was an act of separation: don’t undo it by muddling everything back together.
This is of course especially important for animal breeding, since animal categories are crucial for both the sacrificial system and the kosher laws. When everything means something, then it’s important to know what everything is, categorically.
This collection starts with what looks like a nod to the Decalogue: honoring parents, sabbath, no idols. And it’s not impossible that that’s what this is, since one of the differences between H and P is that H knows and reacts to D.
But it isn’t the same. The part about parents is different: not honor, כבד, which I argued earlier was about caring for ancestral graves, but respect, ירא. This chapter comes between the sex laws, which seems relevant. Also in H we get the law against insulting parents, Lev 20:9.
H, in other words, seems to mean here what everyone usually thinks the Decalogue means: respect your parents, during their lifetimes. H cares about this from various angles. And maybe(?) it signals a temporal shift coinciding with the fading of the ancestral cult. Maybe.
Some sins defile the sanctuary - the kinds of ritual sins we met in Lev 1-15, along with impurities - but some sins, like those in this chapter, defile the land itself. And while you can purify the sanctuary…not so much the land.
There’s only one way for the land to be cleansed: the removal of the people whose behavior has defiled it. (And, crucially, defiled the people themselves, too - unlike what we saw in Lev 1-15.) That’s the land “spewing out” its inhabitants.
That’s what H says happened to the previous inhabitants, the Canaanites, who acted in all these abhorrent ways. (But we know that they actually didn’t, right? It’s just a nasty polemic.)
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman. It is an abomination.
How should we understand this verse? What does it mean that the Bible seems to prohibit male homosexual intercourse?
Let me start simply: it says what it says. It does prohibit it.
Do I like it? Of course not. But I don’t like plenty of what’s in the Bible. And neither do you - I don’t care what religion or tradition you claim. So we can begin there. Everyone picks and chooses, and everyone has always picked and chosen. Even in the Bible itself.
So holding this verse up and saying homosexuality is wrong is silly, unless you’re also in favor of slavery, or stoning disobedient children, or, I don’t know, keeping kosher. Especially, obviously, if you declare all the laws to have been voided by the coming of Jesus.
Did the biblical authors believe in the following: divine beings aside from YHWH? various demons and other supernatural beings? spaces not controlled by YHWH? dumping grounds for sins where they wouldn’t bother anyone?
Yes to all.
When we get hung up on the identity of Azazel, we miss the point (in this case, what’s actually happening in the ritual). Was Azazel a goat demon? Maybe! Probably, even. Is the identity of Azazel important here? Not so much, actually.
The question should be: if Aaron has just purified the sanctuary with the purification offerings, even brought inside the inner sanctum, all the way to YHWH’s seat, then what sins are left for hm to be placing on this goat?
Same blood from the same animals, the purification sacrifices. Just moving from the inner sanctum to the outer altar, because we all know you have to start sweeping from the inside and work your way out.
Here again we get really clear useful language about what this sacrifice does, here and everywhere: it cleans and purifies the altar, and the sanctuary, from the impurities of Israel. In none of this is any person being purified, or cleaned, or even forgiven. It’s the sanctuary.
To this point, a good deal of this ritual is relatively familiar: that is, it’s closest in form to the sacrificial procedure we saw back in Leviticus 9, where the Tabernacle was inaugurated. This isn’t surprising: what’s happening here is what I’ve called a ritual reset.