**This is an update of the article that I posted back in December of 2009. I have added a few sections (2.3, 10.7), a few new quotations, and have moved things around a bit. Sometime in the near future, I also plan to shrink the overly large section 10 by incorporating some of the questions back into the main article--but for now, I am calling it good and am moving on to other things.
Tears of Oberon
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 WHO WERE THE ALIEN RESIDENTS?
2.1 Defining the Terms
2.2 Logical Deductions
2.2.1 Argument from ignorance.
2.2.2 Holy vs unholy.
2.2.3 Principle of impartiality.
2.3 Relationship of Non-Worshipers in General to Jehovah
3.0 DID JEHOVAH HOLD NON-WORSHIPERS AND PAGANS TO HIS STANDARDS?
4.0 HELD OR BOUND?
5.0 THE ISSUE OF CHOICE
6.0 WHAT DO THE WITNESSES ACTUALLY BELIEVE?
6.1 By Way of Review
7.0 ALLOWANCE DOES NOT MEAN APPROVAL
8.0 DIVORCE PARALLEL
9.0 CONSISTENCY OF STANDARDS
10.0 OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH PROBE THE LOGIC OF OUR POSITION
10.1 Permission to Act Contrary to Standards?
10.2 Allowance of Divorce Indicative of Moral Approval?
10.3 Allowance of Polygamy Indicative of Moral Approval?
10.4 Allowance of the Selling of Carcasses Indicative of Moral Approval?
10.5 Job and the Issue of Pagans
10.6 Did Job Eat Unbled Flesh?
10.7 Rahab
10.8 Exodus 22:31 and Torn Flesh
10.9 Was God Acting Contrary to His Own Standards?
10.10 Who was the Law Written to?
10.11 Ger Toshab and Noahide Law
1.0 INTRODUCTION
“YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.”—Deu 14:21
The question has been brought up from this verse: if Noachian Law prohibited men from eating any sort of blood or animal carcass which had not been properly bled, then why would God allow his holy people to dispose of (presumably unbled) carcasses by selling and or giving them to ones who should have still technically been under Noachian Law? Would this Scripture not indicate that pre-Law peoples, including Noah, could eat blood and unbled carcasses with Divine approval? The simple answer to the latter question is: No.
It has already been shown in previous articles (some may not be officially posted here yet), that Genesis 9:3 only allowed the eating of animals that were "alive." "Abstaining from things strangled" as a reflection of both Mosaic and Noachian law and how it was understood to include animals that died naturally or unnaturally without having the blood drained dictates directly against the opposer’s main premise found in Deuteronomy 14:21.
The following article will further seek to prove to sufficiency the following four main points (along with various other sub-points):
1. The alien residents mentioned at Deu. 14:21 were NOT approved worshipers of Jehovah and were thus not HELD to his righteous standards in the same manner that the Israelites were.
2. Taking the view that the alien residents mentioned in Deu. 14:21 were approved worshipers makes God partial.
3. Because Jehovah would allow the eating of a carcass or otherwise unbled flesh to pagan peoples outside of the realm of his worshippers in no way can stand as evidence that he allowed it for his approved worshippers in the pre-Law era, based on parallels to such other allowed practiced as divorce and polygamy.
4. The alien residents were not forced to buy anything from the Israelites; thus, it is impossible to prove that a non-Israelite follower of Noachian Law would buy an unbled carcass in the first place, rather than simply reject it.
2.0 WHO WERE THE “ALIEN RESIDENTS?”
The first point to consider is: who exactly were these people to whom the carcasses were being given? Where they approved worshipers of Jehovah allowed to exist outside of the Law covenant and yet still directly beside peoples under the Law? Or, were they simply pagans and people of the nations?
2.1 Defining the Terms
Insight on the Scriptures had this to say on the alien residents in Deuteronomy:
“The alien resident who had become a circumcised worshiper was bound to one law with the Israelites, that is, to obey all the terms of the Law covenant.(Le 24:22) A few examples are: He was required to keep the Sabbath (Ex 20:10; 23:12) and to celebrate the Passover (Nu 9:14; Ex 12:48, 49), the Festival of Unfermented Cakes (Ex 12:19), the Festival of Weeks (De 16:10, 11), the Festival of Booths (De 16:13, 14), and the Day of Atonement (Le 16:29, 30). He could offer sacrifices (Nu 15:14) and had to do so in the same manner as prescribed for the natural Israelite.(Nu 15:15, 16) His offerings were to be unblemished (Le 22:18-20) and brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting just as was done by the natural Israelite.(Le 17:8, 9) He could not engage in any false worship.(Le 20:2; Eze 14:7) He was required to drain blood out of game killed in hunting and would be “cut off” if he ate it undrained.(Le 17:10-14) He could receive forgiveness along with natural Israel for community responsibility for sins.(Nu 15:26, 29) He had to observe the purification procedures, for example, if unclean by touching a human corpse.(Nu 19:10, 11) The alien resident who could be given the body of an animal that had died of itself was evidently one who had not become a full-fledged worshiper of Jehovah.—De 14:21." (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1 pages 72-75, emphasis mine).
The Scripture in Leviticus merits some closer attention.
"‘As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people." (Lev 17:10, 11)
The alien residents mentioned in Deu. 14:21 obviously had some fundamental differences with the alien residents mentioned in Leviticus and all of the other Scriptures cited in the above entry; otherwise, the Bible quite blatantly contradicts itself, e.g. allowing aliens in Deuteronomy to eat blood entombed within carcasses but forbidding blood to the “aliens” in Leviticus. As the Insight book suggested, the most likely explanation involves a difference in worship. The alien residents in Deuteronomy 14:21 were not considered to be true worshipers of Jehovah.
Indeed, this is what Strong’s concordance also indicates.
Deu 14:21 – “Ye shall not eat 398 [of] any thing that dieth of itself 5038: thou shalt give 5414 it unto the stranger 1616 that [is] in thy gates 8179, that he may eat 398 it; or thou mayest sell 4376 it unto an alien 5237: for thou [art] an holy 6918 people 5971 unto the LORD 3068 thy God 430. (emphasis mine)
Strong's H1616[1] – ger (Heb. גר)
Pronunciation: gār
Part of Speech: masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology): from H1481
TWOT Reference: 330a
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) sojourner
a) a temporary inhabitant, a newcomer lacking inherited rights
b) of foreigners in Israel, though conceded rights
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 92
AV — stranger 87, alien 1, sojourner 1, stranger + 0376 1, stranger + 04480 1, strangers + 0582 1
Gesenius’s Lexicon Entry:
The Scripture in Deuteronomy was referring to non-proselyte aliens, ie, non-worshipers of Jehovah, while the Scripture in Leviticus was referring to proselyte aliens, ie, ones that did worship Jehovah in an approved manner.
Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2 page 699 gives the following under “proselyte”:
“A convert, that is, one who embraced Judaism, getting circumcised, if a male. (Mt 23:15, ftn) The Greek word pro·se′ly·tos (proselyte) is used in both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures.
For more than 19 centuries Jehovah dealt with a special, select people, the family of Abraham and his seed, primarily the nation of Israel. Yet it was possible for a non-Hebrew or a non-Israelite who desired to serve Jehovah according to the requirements of true worship to do so. However, he would have to convert to true religion, that is, become a proselyte. The Mosaic Law made specific provisions for a person of non-Israelite origin dwelling in Israel. Such an “alien resident” could become a full worshiper of Jehovah, being circumcised, if a male, in acknowledgment of his acceptance of true worship. (Ex 12:48, 49) A proselyte was responsible to obey all of the Law, and he was to be treated by natural Jews as a brother. (Le 19:33, 34; 24:22; Ga 5:3; see ALIEN RESIDENT.) The Hebrew word ger, rendered “alien resident” (“stranger,” KJ), does not always signify such a religious convert (Ge 15:13; Ex 2:22; Jer 14:8), but in more than 70 instances where the translators of the Septuagint possibly believed that it did, they rendered it by the Greek pro·se′ly·tos.
Throughout Israelite history non-Jews became proselytes, in effect saying about the Jews what Moabitess Ruth said to Naomi: “Your people will be my people, and your God my God.” (Ru 1:16; Jos 6:25; Mt 1:5) Solomon’s prayer at the inauguration of the temple reflected God’s open and generous spirit toward those of many nations who might want to serve Him as proselytes. (1Ki 8:41-43) Non-Jews mentioned by name who evidently became proselytes included Doeg the Edomite (1Sa 21:7), Uriah the Hittite (2Sa 11:3, 11), and Ebed-melech the Ethiopian (Jer 38:7-13). When the Jews in Mordecai’s time received permission to stand and defend themselves, “many of the peoples of the land were declaring themselves Jews.” (Es 8:17) The Septuagint reads: “And many of the Gentiles were circumcised, and became Jews.”—Bagster.”
And for even further support of this conclusion, one needs only follow up on the information given in the above quotation and look at the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 14:21 in comparison with the translation of others verses involving supposed proselytes, e.g., Leviticus 17:10.
“As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.” (Lev. 17:10 NWT)
Leviticus 17:10 Greek OT: Septuagint with Diacritics:
καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος τῶν υἱῶν ισραηλ ἢ τῶν προσηλύτων τῶν προσκειμένων ἐν ὑμῖν ὃς ἂν φάγῃ πᾶν αἷμα καὶ ἐπιστήσω τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐπὶ τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν ἔσθουσαν τὸ αἷμα καὶ ἀπολῶ αὐτὴν ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτῆς
The Jewish Septuagint translators chose to use Strong’s G4339 for this verse.
Pronunciation: pros-ā'-lü-tos
Part of Speech: adjective
Root Word (Etymology): from the alternate of G4334
TDNT Reference: 6:727, 943
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a newcomer
a) a stranger, alien
2) a proselyte
a) one who has come over from a Gentile religion to Judaism
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 4
AV — proselyte 4
Vines Entry:
Proselyte:
akin to proserchomai, "to come to," primarily signifies "one who has arrived, a stranger;" in the NT it is used of converts to Judaism, or foreign converts to the Jewish religion, Mat 23:15; Act 2:10; 6:5; 13:43. There seems to be no connection necessarily with Palestine, for in Act 2:10; 13:43 it is used of those who lived abroad. Cp. the Sept., e.g., in Exd 22:21; 23:9; Deu 10:19, of the "stranger" living among the children of Israel.
Thayer’s Lexicon:
In contrast, Deuteronomy 14:21 LXX uses a completely different word.
Pronunciation: pä'-roi-kos
Part of Speech: adjective
Root Word (Etymology): from G3844 and G3624
TDNT Reference: 5:841, 788
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) dwelling near, neighbouring
2) in the NT, a stranger, a foreigner, one who lives in a place without the right of citizenship
3) metaph.
a) without citizenship in God's kingdom
b) one who lives on earth as a stranger, a sojourner on the earth
c) of Christians whose home is in heaven
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 4
AV — stranger 2, sojourn 1, foreigner 1
Vines Entry:
Sojourn, Sojourner, Sojourning:
an adjective, akin to A, No. 1, lit., "dwelling near" (see above), then, "foreign, alien" (found with this meaning in inscriptions), hence, as a noun, "a sojourner," is used with eimi, "to be," in Act 7:6, "should sojourn," lit., "should be a sojourner;" in Act 7:29, RV, "sojourner" (AV, "stranger"); in Eph 2:19, RV "sojourners" (AV, "foreigners"), the preceding word rendered "strangers" is xenos; in 1Pe 2:11, RV, ditto (AV, "strangers").
Thayer’s Lexicon:
2.2 Logical Deductions.
Let us now consider three and a half arguments based not on linguistic evidence, but rather purely on logic and common sense.
2.2.1 Argument from ignorance. If one was an alien and was around the gates of a city of God’s now chosen people, then he could not call himself an actual, approved worshiper of Jehovah unless he subjected himself to the commandments and covenant that Jehovah had just brought into effect, i.e., the Law of Moses. And considering also that the alien residents were described as being “inside the gates,” and as being the possible recipients of carcasses DIRECTLY FROM Israelites under the Law Covenant, even a self-professed worshiper formerly in ignorance, e.g., Job, would have no excuse for not knowing that God now had a new Covenant in place with new laws that needed to be adhered to by His followers. One who resided in the gates and who truly wanted to be a worshiper of Jehovah could have simply taken the path of the full proselyte, as did the aliens referred to in Leviticus. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the “alien residents” along with the “foreigners” mentioned in Deuteronomy were not approved worshipers of Jehovah.
2.2.2 Holy vs unholy. Consider also that the verse in Deuteronomy calls those in the city a “holy people.” Therefore, the “alien residents” in the gates were, in contradistinction, not a holy people. If some of these alien residents in the gates were in fact proselytes, and were in fact approved worshipers of Jehovah (even apart from his new Law covenant which anyone residing in the gates of an Israelite city should have known about), then why imply that they are an unholy people and group them together with “foreigners?”
Another way of looking at it may be as follows: God is giving his laws to his HOLY PEOPLE. He is reiterating to THEM that they may not eat a body already dead, because THEY must stay holy. If the Israelites were to eat a body already dead, they would no longer be holy according to the structure of the verse. Therefore, to throw the already dead bodies to foreigners and “alien residents” would make them UNHOLY in contradistinction. Why would God allow men still technically “bound” by the Noachian law to become unholy by eating bodies already dead? It’s because they were ALREADY unholy in God’s eyes. You cannot make a person doubly unholy. You are either holy in God’s eyes or you aren’t. The alien residents and foreigners were simply not true, approved worshipers.
2.2.3 Principle of impartiality. Still another line of reasoning may be put forth by way of Scripture:
“See what you are doing, because it is not for man that you judge but it is for Jehovah ... Be careful and act, for with Jehovah our God there is no unrighteousness or partiality.”—2 Chronicles 19:6, 7.
“Jehovah your God ... treats none with partiality.” (Deuteronomy 10:17)
The question to consider is: If God allows for there to be two different groups of approved worshipers of Himself SIDE-BY-SIDE, and He holds one group to lesser standards, is God being being partial or impartial? If one wishes to hold onto the premise that God is always impartial with His servants, then the only way to reconcile that premise with the evidence is to accept that one group does not really consist of approved worshipers of Him. Otherwise, we would have to accept that God allowed two groups of approved worshipers of Himself to exist SIDE BY SIDE, and that He held each group to completely different standards, e.g., an Israelite could break one Law and be eligible for punishment or wrath, but the alien could commit the same act and get off Scott-free.
2.3 Relationship of Non-Worshipers in General to Jehovah
While it is true that Deuteronomy 14:21 deals with a very specific type of non-worshiper (the type who logically must have known about the new covenant arrangement with Israel by virtue of their “being in the gates”), what about professed worshipers of Jehovah who were ignorant of the new arrangement with Israel? While not exactly being relevant to the theme of this paper, it has been brought up—and so, it might as well be addressed while we are ‘near’ the subject.
Thanks go to Gareth for providing us this section. His explanations are always amongst the most formidable on the JW side—far more so than mine. The clarifying pieces that I have added myself are in green within the brackets.
Gareth’s Post Start:
Israel was not just some "example nation". It was much MUCH more.
Israel was a system by which men could have a righteous standing before God.
It is possible that people could worship Jehovah outside Israel and Jehovah would fully accept their worship [so long as they were ignorant of the new Law Covenant—if they were aware of the new arrangement but willingly rejected it, then how would it be any different than a Jew later willingly rejecting the new arrangement involving faith through Christ?]. They would through faith, perhaps, pave the way for a resurrection into the new system after they died. But then many people who did not worship Jehovah may well get a resurrection also. So what is special there?
The facts are that ONLY those in Israel could achieve a "righteous standing" before Jehovah with a view to being selected as a king and priest of his holy nation as part of the "seed" promised through Abraham.
The whole Mosaic System was designed to raise people to perfection such that they would "qualify" to inherit this blessing of being a kingdom priest.
Obviously this process was doomed to failure and Jehovah told them it would fail even before they entered into the promised land.
But that is neither here nor there. In *theory* it was possible for a man to become justified through the Mosaic System. In *practice* it was only possible for a human born without the sin inherited from Adam.
So with respect to God's purpose in this, only those giving through the Mosaic System could be acceptable to God. Although you could worship God elsewhere and no doubt receive a resurrection for your faith, you could not be an acceptable part of the unfolding of God's plan without being in the Mosaic System.
Further more you would not receive the blessings promised through the Mosaic System simply for worshipping Jehovah. Those blessings, that were many, were promised only to Israel.
So I would say that even though Jehovah surely "accepted" worship from people outside Israel. Their worship was not "acceptable" according to the outworking of Jehovah's plan for that time.
[A few Scriptures in support of the above]:
“And now if YOU will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then YOU will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me.”—Exodus 19:5
“It is you Jehovah your God has chosen to become his people, a special property, out of all the peoples”?’—Deuteronomy 7:6.
“Hear this word that Jehovah has spoken concerning YOU, O sons of Israel, concerning the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt, saying ‘YOU people only have I known out of all the families of the ground. That is why I shall hold an accounting against YOU for all YOUR errors.”—Amos 3:1, 2
Also:
“that YOU were at that particular time without Christ, alienated from the state of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, and YOU had no hope and were without God in the world.”—Ephesians 2:12
So it is hard to justify from scripture that anyone, not subscribing to the Mosaic System, was in a proper relationship with Jehovah that they might benefit from his purpose in the promises he made.
3.0 DID JEHOVAH HOLD NON-WORSHIPERS AND PAGANS TO HIS STANDARDS?
Opposers often like to make the points:
1) All mankind was held to the Noachian Decree, even after the Law covenant, regardless of their beliefs or practices of worship.
2) Jehovah would have expected all mankind to follow the Noachian Decree, even after the Law covenant, regardless of whether or not the people even worshiped Him.
But the above points are not in harmony with what the Bible actually says.
“For these nations whom you are dispossessing used to listen to those practicing magic and to those who divine; but as for you, Jehovah your God has not given [or “allowed] you anything like this.”(Deu 18:14)
“In the past generations he permitted all the nations to go on in their ways” (Acts 14:16)
"True, God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent." (Acts 17:30)
The verses show that Jehovah was not expressly enforcing the Noachian decree upon all mankind prior to Christ.
"Therefore keep bearing in mind that formerly YOU were people of the nations as to flesh; ...alienated from the state of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, and YOU had no hope and were without God in the world....Christ. 14 For he is our peace, he who made the two parties one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off....18 because through him we, both peoples, have the approach to the Father by one spirit." (Eph 2:11, 12, 14, 18)
The verses in Ephesians show that those alienated from Israel were without God, and could not approach God because of the figurative “wall” that the Law created.
These proof texts give us the reason why Israelites were permitted to sell/give (presumably unbled) carcasses to non-proselytes and foreigners.
Foreigners and non-proselytes, who were not worshippers of Jehovah, did not keep the Mosaic Law. And God was not at that time enforcing his laws and decrees upon pagans or non-proselyte alien residents.
4.0 HELD OR BOUND?
Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, p. 345 under “Blood” wrote[4]:
“At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner and that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food (Compare Le 17:14-16). The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah.”
Let’s look more closely at what is said here in the Insight book.
"People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but THOSE under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to THAT requirement [REQUIREMENTS OF THE NOACHIN DECREE] than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (parentheses and emphasis mine).
The publication is making the point that it was the people, true worshippers, under the Mosaic Law who were HELD to the standards of Gen 9:3, 4 more strictly than the people of the nations. It is not saying the Mosaic Law set higher standards than the Noachian decree.
In the context of the entry, being technically BOUND to a requirement and actually being HELD to that requirement are treated completely differently. The entry states that those under Law (either Israelites or proselytes) were HELD by God to the Gen 9:3, 4 more than the foreigners and non-proselytes were HELD by God to it. In other words, they should have adhered to the Decree but God did not force them to adhere or punish them if they did not. God did not HOLD those foreigners and non-proselytes to his standards if they did not want to take up true worship of him. But if they did want to take up true worship of God, then whey would be HELD to the Law and to Gen 9:3, 4 to the same degree that God’s chosen people and proselytes were HELD. If the alien residents mentioned at Deu. 14:21 were true worshipers of Jehovah, then they would not have eaten the unbled carcasses thrown to them by other true worshipers. If they were true worshipers of Jehovah then they would not just sit in the gate doing their own thing—they would subject themselves to Jehovah’s current Laws (which they would have no excuse for not knowing existed since they were right there in the gates of Israelite cities taking meat directly from Israelites) and take the path of the other true worshipers around them by becoming proselytes.
This same thought of choice is echoed by Aaron Zebi Friedman in his work Tub Taam (reproduced in full later):
Now the meat of such an animal thou mayest give to the stranger within thy gates that he may eat it, if he chooses. But to the Israelite such meat is forbidden, as the Bible says (Deuteronomy xiv. 2, 3): "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing, "even if it is fit to be eaten.
But of course, you will not hear anything about “choice” from the anti-Witness camp. As far as they are concerned, the alien residents and foreigners must have been forced at sword point to buy these carcasses from the Israelites. It is understandable though, because the issue of choice is so devastating to their absolute statements. We will discuss why in the next section.
5.0 THE ISSUE OF CHOICE
The opposer’s typical argument goes something like this:
1. All mankind followed the Noachian Law (followed Jehovah in the way Noah did)
2. The alien residents were a part of all mankind.
3. Israelites sold unbled carcasses to alien residents.
4. All alien residents bought the carcasses when presented.
5. The carcasses contained blood.
6. Therefore, mankind was not forbidden to eat blood by Noachian Law.
There are several obvious problems of course, the most glaring being that the argument only works if we assume two things:
1. Within the total number of alien residents who were sold these carcasses, there was at the very least ONE person who followed Jehovah in the old ways, i.e., adhered to the Noachian Law.
2. EVERY SINGLE PERSON presented with these (presumably) unbled carcasses freely bought them (which would by extension include the one person required by the first point).
3. Therefore, because that one follower of the Noachian Law chose to eat a (presumably) unbled carcass, the Noachian Law must not have forbid the eating of unbled carcasses.
But why should we assume that all of mankind still followed Jehovah and the Noachian Laws? What if some only SOME of the alien residents followed Jehovah in the old ways (Noachian Laws), and not all of them? What if the non-worshippers of Jehovah bought the carcasses freely, but those who followed Jehovah in the old way chose not to buy the unbled carcasses, based on what they knew of the Noachian Law? What if, after coming in contact with these Jewish traders and learning that God now had a new covenant in place, the alien residents (already used to serving Jehovah in the old ways and used to not using blood) wished to now start serving Jehovah in the new, proper way (also not using blood)? These are all very legitimate alternatives which opposers often like to ignore (bifurcation).
6.0 WHAT DO THE WITNESSES ACTUALLY BELIEVE?
It is also important to know what the Witnesses actual beliefs are, because the author of this work has seen far too many pompous strawmen arguments pop up which take the form of, “The Watchtower teaches you this! Do you disagree with the Watchtower?!” And so, I will try my best to make things crystal clear below on one particular issue that I have dealt with in the past.
The Watchtower of November 15, 1964 pp. 680-683 states:
"The Israelites were told: “You must not eat any body already dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.”(Deut. 14:21) So whether a Christian who works in a store will dispose of blood goods, such as blood sausage, by selling such goods to persons of the world who are willing to pay for them is a matter of conscience."
…
Some doctors who are Jehovah’s witnesses have administered blood transfusions to persons of the world upon request. However, they do not do so in the case of one of Jehovah’s dedicated witnesses. In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor’s own conscience. This is similar to the situation facing a Christian butcher or grocer who must decide whether he can conscientiously sell blood sausage to a worldly person.
Harmonizing that article with the information in the Insight Book brings us to the exact same conclusion already discussed about being technically bound and held—even though those “persons of the world” are still technically “bound” by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, they are not “held” to it, and Christians are not expected to treat them as if they were being “held” to it. If the worldly person wishes to obey Jehovah and live up to his righteous standards, then they will not buy and eat the blood sausage in the first place. But if they do not care about serving Jehovah, then they can still do what they wish without immediate repercussions. Jehovah is focused on holding his own “holy people” and followers to his standards. He does not hold people of the world to his standards like he does his own true and approved worshipers.
6.1 By Way of Review:
1) Jehovah's Witnesses believe the blood itself to be a sacred substance.
2) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that all mankind is BOUND to Noachian Law.
3) Jehovah’s Witnesses do NOT believe that all mankind is actually HELD to Noachian Law.
4) Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God does not enforce his laws upon non-worshipers of himself nor does he HOLD them to the same standards as true worshipers, just as God did not HOLD the Athenians to his standards on idolatry, but rather overlooked their ignorance, even though as sons of Noah they were still technically BOUND to the Decrees (see proof texts Eph 2:12; Acts 14:16; 17:30). He is more focused on what his true worshipers are doing and what standards they adhere to (Amos 3:2).
7.0 ALLOWANCE DOES NOT MEAN APPROVAL
In my discussions with a few zealous opposers, there always seemed to be quite a bit of equivocation surrounding the words “allowance” and “approval.” I will clear that up here in this section.
From Webster’s Online Dictionary
Main Entry: ap·prove
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈprüv\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ap·proved; ap·prov·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French apruer, approver, from Latin approbare, from ad- + probare to prove — more at prove
Date: 14th century
transitive verb 1 obsolete : prove, attest
2 : to have or express a favorable opinion of (couldn't approve such conduct)
3 a : to accept as satisfactory (hopes she will approve the date of the meeting) b : to give formal or official sanction to : ratify (Congress approved the proposed budget) intransitive verb : to take a favorable view (doesn't approve of fighting)
2 : to have or express a favorable opinion of (couldn't approve such conduct)
3 a : to accept as satisfactory (hopes she will approve the date of the meeting) b : to give formal or official sanction to : ratify (Congress approved the proposed budget) intransitive verb : to take a favorable view (doesn't approve of fighting)
— ap·prov·ing·ly \-ˈprü-viŋ-lē\ adverb
synonyms approve, endorse, sanction, accredit, certify mean to have or express a favorable opinion of. approve often implies no more than this but may suggest considerable esteem or admiration (the parents approve of the marriage). endorse suggests an explicit statement of support (publicly endorsed her for Senator). sanction implies both approval and authorization (the President sanctioned covert operations). accredit and certify usually imply official endorsement attesting to conformity to set standards (the board voted to accredit the college) (must be certified to teach).
Because God ALLOWED Israelites to sell carcasses to non-worshipers, many opposers assume that God also morally approved of or endorsed the practice; however, allowance, and authorization should not be assumed to include moral approval or endorsement (the word which includes all of those connotations is “sanction”) For example, I can allow homosexuality to go on around me, and I can tolerate it, but I still personally condemn the practice as unbiblical and unnatural.
Jehovah also ALLOWED Tamar to trick her father-in-law into having sex with her and the resulting child was in the line of descent to Jesus. Did this mean God endorsed/approved the event that took place?
God expressly AUTHORIZED Israelites to obtain certificates of divorce from Moses. Israelites did not have to get a divorce just because they could. Did this indicate that God endorsed/approved the practice of divorce?
God expressly AUTHORIZED Israelites to sell (presumably unbled) carcasses to non-worshipers (if the non-worshippers chose to buy them). But did this indicate that God endorsed/approved the practice of eating blood?
8.0 DIVORCE PARALLEL
The “Only True God” website, in one of its articles, makes the statement:
"First of all, we must ask: Is the fact that God allowed Israelite men to divorce their wives on nearly any ground indicative that God does not care about the practice of divorce? Why did he allow it? Why did he specifically provide for something that he has stated elsewhere that he hates and that Jesus later clarified as not his intentions from the "beginning"? (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:4-12) He obviously made a concession because of the hard-heartedness of the Israelite people, but one could never use the allowance of divorce in the Israelite setting as proof that God did not "hate" a divorcing. Likewise, with the statement that the non-proselyte foreigner in the land of Israel could purchase a carcass and eat it, that would not prove that God approved of such a practice.
God, at that point in history, was not forcing his laws and principles upon the pagan nations who were not involved in worship to Him, even those non-proselyte temporary residents within their boundaries. Because he would allow the eating of a carcass or otherwise unbled flesh to these pagan "peoples" outside of the realm of his worshippers in no way can stand as evidence that he allowed it to his worshippers in the pre-Law era. If He was willing to concede "divorce" that he "hated" even unto his own people, how can it be stated that God's allowing a pagan to do something stands as evidence his worshippers could do it? One would surely be employing the verse in a manner that it was not intended to be employed to force that meaning upon the text."
Building on that reasoning further: what if God had repeatedly stated that he hates divorce? What if He had only intended for 1 man and one woman to marry in the beginning? But then, what if God went and specifically allowed His own holy covenant people to go and do something that He Himself repeatedly stated that He hated. Would he himself be acting consistent with his standards? Of course. God always acts consistent with his own standards. Would he be forcing mankind to act consistent with his own personal standards? No, not necessarily. God can allow mankind to do whatever they want—just look at the divorce concession.
And, if God would allow his own covenant people to perform an act he hates and never intended (divorce), then why should it be inferred that because God allowed non-proselyte, non worshipers to perform a certain action, he morally approved of that action?
If he was willing to concede "divorce" that he "hated" even unto his own people, how can it be stated that God's allowing a non-proselyte to do something stands as evidence his worshippers could do it? It can’t.
Therefore, in summary, the statement quoted earlier and all of the above Scriptures and evidence still hold true: “God, at that point in history, was not forcing his laws and principles upon the pagan nations who were not involved in worship to Him, even those non-proselyte temporary residents within their boundaries.” His focus was on his own covenant people. Those outside his Laws and covenant could do what they wanted.
Divorce was also specifically spoken of as being hated by God, even before Jesus.
"For he has hated a divorcing,” Jehovah the God of Israel has said" (Mal 2:16)
Therefore, if God specifically allowed his own covenant people to do something that He Himself hated, then the act by God of allowing non-proselytes to eat (presumably) unbled carcasses can IN NO WAY be used to support the claim that God morally approved of the practice of men eating (presumably) unbled carcasses. The most that can be inferred is that God simply “tolerated” the practice of giving unbled carcasses to aliens and foreigners, just as he “tolerated” divorce and other practices, such as polygamy.
9.0 CONSISTENCY OF STANDARDS
This subject seemed a tad bit long for the “Other Questions” section at the end of this chapter, so I decided to give it a section entirely its own. The basic assertion goes like this:
1) Should we assume God acts consistent with His own standards of right and wrong unless we have explicit evidence otherwise?
From Matthew 19:7 we have,
A. God acted contrary to his own standards [by allowing certificates of divorce for Israelite men].
B. We know God acted contrary to his own standards in this case because Jesus said by allowing certificates of divorce for Israelite men God acted contrary to his own standards.
Matt 19:7,8: "They said to him:“Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them:“Moses, out of regard for YOUR hardheartedness, made the concession to YOU of divorcing YOUR wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning."
A. God did not act contrary to his own standards. He allowed Israelites to do as they desired. By allowing their acts he did not morally approve of it. He did not act contrary to his own standards.
B. Jesus did not say God acted contrary to His own standards. The opposer simply adds to Jesus' words.
Additionally, the ignorance of the men who questioned Jesus cannot be used to prove that ALL Israelites were ignorant of God’s view of marriage and divorce. Case in point, Jesus said
“In reply he [Jesus] said: ‘Did you not read…Therefore…”
Jesus only pointed out to the ignorant Jews what they already should have known about god’s view of marriage by reading the Scriptures.
“Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives” (Mat 19:8)
Moses knew what God’s view of marriage and divorce was from the beginning—he himself wrote Gen 2:24, 25, which shows what God's original standards for marriage were. Malachi 2:16 also shows that Jehovah "hates" divorce. So even if Jesus had not spoken what he did, it would not have been impossible to know what God's views really were. As has already been mentioned, he was simply pointing out something that the Jews should have already been able to figure out from the Scriptures.
God made the concession of tolerating divorce among his own chosen people. Whether or not the people themselves knew that it was wrong or not DOESN’T MATTER. What is important is whether GOD HIMSELF is consistent with his own standards and whether or not he can allow men to act contrary to His own standards if they choose, NOT whether or not the people PERCIEVE him to be consistent with his own standards. God himself hated divorce; it went against his original standards for marriage (Mal 2:16; Gen 2:24; Mat 19:3-9) God knew it was wrong, and yet he made a concession to allow Israelites to perform an action he hated. Moses knew it, the Scriptures indicated it. It would only be the Israelite’s ignorance that caused them to not realize it as well. God did and can allow his people to act contrary to his own personal standards if he wishes. God ALSO made the concession of tolerating polygamy among his own chosen people. God gave Adam just one wife. The pattern was that the TWO, not three or four, would be one flesh. Jesus and Paul in the Christian age directed the disciples to return to God’s original way for human marriage, a man’s having only one living wife (Mat 19:5;Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12).
10.0 QUESTIONS WHICH PROBE THE LOGIC OF OUR POSITION
10.1 Can God specifically permit men to act contrary to his own personal standards?
Absolutely. We have divorce and polygamy as perfect examples (see below)
10.2 Was God’s allowing of the Israelites to divorce indicative that He did not hate the practice? Or, to reverse the question: Could God’s specifically allowing and tolerating the practice of divorce be legitimately viewed as a definite indication that God morally approved of the practice or that the practice was within his own personal standards?
No, absolutely not. God's views of marriage and divorce were known from the very beginning, and were reemphasized by Jesus in the first century. (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:16; Matthew 19:3-9)
Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2 p. 342, under Marriage says
Divorce. At the institution of marriage by the Creator, he made no provision for divorce. A man was to stick to his wife, and “they must become one flesh.” (Ge 2:24) A man would therefore have one wife who was considered one flesh with him. It was only after man’s fall and consequent imperfections and degradation that divorce entered in.
In giving the Law to Israel, God did not at that time choose to enforce the original standard, but he regulated divorce so that it would not bring dissolution of the family arrangement in Israel or work undue hardship. However, at God’s due time his original standard was restored. Jesus stated the principle governing the Christian congregation—that “fornication” (Gr., por·nei’a) is the only valid ground for divorce. He explained that God did not enforce this standard through Moses out of regard for the hardheartedness of the Israelites.—Mt 19:3-9; Mr 10:1-11.
10.3 Was God’s allowing of the Israelites to marry multiple wives indicative that God did not disapprove of the practice? Or, to reverse the phrasing: could God’s allowing/tolerating the practice of polygamy in the pre-Christian age legitimately be viewed as a definite indication that God morally approved of the practice, or that it was within his own personal standards?
See the answer for question 2 above, along with 1Ti 3:2, 12; Tit 1:5, 6.
Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 2 p. 343, under “Marriage” says:
Polygamy. Since God’s original standard for mankind was for the husband and wife to become one flesh, polygamy was not intended, and it is prohibited in the Christian congregation. Overseers and ministerial servants, who are to set the example for the congregation, are to be men having not more than one living wife. (1Ti 3:2, 12; Tit 1:5, 6) This is in harmony with what true marriage is used to picture, namely, the relationship of Jesus Christ and his congregation, the only wife possessed by Jesus.—Eph 5:21-33.
As was the case with divorce, polygamy, while not God’s original arrangement, was tolerated until the time of the Christian congregation. Polygamy had a start not long after Adam’s deflection. The first Bible mention of it is concerning a descendant of Cain, Lamech, of whom it says: “[He] proceeded to take two wives for himself.” (Ge 4:19) Concerning some of the angels, the Bible mentions that before the Flood, “the sons of the true God . . . went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.”—Ge 6:2.
Concubinage was practiced under patriarchal law and under the Law covenant. A concubine had a legal status; her position was not a matter of fornication or adultery. Under the Law, if a man’s firstborn son was the son of his concubine, this son would be the one to receive the firstborn’s inheritance.—De 21:15-17.
Concubinage and polygamy no doubt enabled the Israelites to increase at a much faster rate, and therefore, while God did not establish these arrangements but only allowed and regulated them, they served some purpose at the time. (Ex 1:7) Even Jacob, who was tricked into polygamy by his father-in-law, was blessed by having 12 sons and some daughters from his two wives and their handmaidens who became concubines to Jacob.—Ge 29:23-29; 46:7-25.”
The Watchtower of June 1, 2009 p. 22 writes:
Jesus showed that God set the standard for marriage when He told the first human pair: “A man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh.” (Matthew 19:5) marriage was to be a lasting bond between two persons. However, by the time God organized the Israelites into a nation and gave them the Law, polygamy had become a common practice. Thus, though God did not originate or encourage polygamy, he provided laws to regulate it. When the Christian congregation was formed, God’s Word clearly prohibited polygamy.—1 Timothy 3:2.
Jehovah God tolerates certain things until his time to correct them. (Romans 9:22-24) Jesus showed that Jehovah had temporarily tolerated improper marriage customs as a “concession” made out of regard for Israel’s “hardheartedness.”—Matthew 19:9; Proverbs 4:18.”
10.4 Was God's allowing of foreigners and non-proselyte alien residents to eat unbled carcasses indicative that He did not hate the practice? Or, to reverse the phrasing: could God’s specifically tolerating/allowing the Israelites to sell unbled carcasses to foreigners and non-proselyte alien residents be legitimately viewed as a definite indication that God morally approved of the practice or that it was within his own person standards?
In harmony with the perfectly parallel questions above: absolutely not. God’s view of blood can be determined by other Scriptures, and then those Scriptures can be used to select the most accurate interpretation of Deu 14:21, i.e., whether God was ok with his servants eating (presumably) unbled carcasses or whether God did not want his approved worshipers ever eating (presumably) unbled carcasses, but still conceded the practice of giving unbled carcasses to non-approved worshipers for the benefit of His chosen people.
10.5 Who says all these people are “pagan” from God’s perspective? Job was not an Israelite.
Answer: True, but Job was a worshiper of Jehovah, and would thus follow his decrees. The key here we must remember is to focus on ones "within Jehovah’s realm of worship."
A worshiper of Jehovah would not have eaten a dead carcass with the blood still in it. If they were a worshiper of Jehovah or even a proselyte, they would have been subject to the Law at that time or they would have attempted to make themselves subject to it (see above points) Therefore, the very fact that these "alien residents" would have taken the dead carcasses in the first place shows that they were not included in the "realm of worship."
Remember to that just because the Israelites themselves were granted authorization to give the carcasses of animals to these “alien residents” does not mean that the “alien residents” had to accept them. An alien resident in the fashion of Job could very well have rejected such a carcass, while a purely pagan alien resident could have accepted it. That is the weak point of the opposing argument. For the original argument against the Witnesses to hold true, one would need to demonstrate that the carcasses were accepted by ANY actual, approved worshipers of Jehovah who were allowed to exist outside of his Law covenant but still right next to his covenant people. To date I have not seen any evidence or examples showing this.
10.6 How do you know that Job did not eat unbled flesh of animals that died of natural causes?"
Answer: And how do you know that he DID eat the meat of animals that died of natural causes with Divine approval? Again, it can't be proved one way or the other because the Bible simply does not mention anything on the subject.
And that is the basic fallacy in attempting to use Deuteronomy 14:21 to refute the position that Noah did not eat blood OR unbled carcasses. You cannot validly START at Deu. 14:21 and then deduce the limitations of the Noachian Law from there. That is backwards. You can only validly discuss Due 14:21 AFTER you have already come to an agreement on the limitations of the Noachian Decree. The assumptions one starts with can drastically affect their interpretation of the verse.
10.7 Well what about Rahab? Rahab was declared righteous by her hiding the spies, even though she was not an Israelite was she not?
Thanks again to Gareth for providing the following answer.
*** Josh 2:9 and she said to the men, "I know that Jehovah has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you.
*** Josh 6:25 But Rahab the prostitute, her father's household, and all that she had, Joshua saved alive. She lived in the midst of Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers, whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
Her faith even came before her actions. She had heard about Israel and Jehovah and all the things he had done for them, and she believed that Jehovah would give them the land. That faith was later demonstrated by her act of loyalty to Israel.
1) She had faith in and fear of Jehovah.
1) She knew that Jehovah was giving the land to Israel.
2) She decided to give her loyalty to Israel.
3) Her hope was to be able to live in the land under their laws and under their God.
4) Therefore, she hid the spies as a demonstration of her loyalty.
When the spies came to her, she willingly hid them, and thus through this action declared loyalty [=allegiance] to Israel [=Mosaic System] over her own nation—it was at that point that she became acceptable in Jehovah's eyes.
I see no reason to believe that she was not adhering to Jehovah's established ways from that moment onwards, albeit imperfectly through her likely lack of knowledge of all their ways.
But her journey had surely started.
Likely she continued to do what is good in Jehovah's eyes to the degree that her knowledge and circumstances allowed.
And let us also look at it this way: If Rahab, after being brought into the land, discontinued serving Jehovah and took up worship of other gods, would she have maintained her righteous standing? Of course not. To abandon Jehovah for other gods would have been a blatant act of disloyalty, especially after her previous statements of faith. Therefore, she must have kept on worshiping Jehovah in order to maintain her righteous standing. However, because she was literally in the “midst” of Israel, would it have been fair on Jehovah’s part to let Rahab worship however the heck she wanted and do whatever the heck she wanted, while at the same time holding Israel to completely different standards? In that situation, a rational outside observer would have to call Jehovah partial, because he would have been giving both Rahab and Israel approved and righteous standings while holding them both to different standards. Therefore Rahab, in maintaining her righteous state, must have also been obligated to conform to the same standards as the Israelites to the best of her ability, i.e., become a proselyte.
10.8 At Exodus 22:31, God let the Israelites deal with “torn flesh” by allowing it to be thrown to the dogs. Hence, the unbled flesh of Exodus 22:31 was prohibited from being giving to alien residents despite any financial benefit to Israel? If this is how God dealt with unbled “torn flesh” and the blood of unbled flesh was so holy, then what possible reason would God have for treating the flesh of Deuteronomy any differently?
Answer: Exodus 22:31 uses Strong's H2966 – terephah.
Lexical Definition:
1) that which is torn, animal torn (by beasts)
Deu 14:21 uses the Hebrew Strong's H5038 – nebelah
Lexical Definition:
1) carcass, corpse
a) of humans, idols, animals
The fundamental difference is in the QUALITY of the carcasses. Exodus deals with TORN carcasses, or those animals which have been killed primarily by other animals. Deuteronomy deals with “nebelah,” or more intact animals which may have died of themselves or may have simply been improperly slaughted.
It is difficult to imagine that very many torn and partially eaten carcasses would be anywhere near fit to eat, let alone fit to sell and reap any substantial financial benefit. Therefore the possibility of God allowing the Israelites to dispose of nebelah (the higher quality carcasses) by selling them to non-worshiping, non Noachian Decree held foreigners for their financial benefit still holds strong. Another simple possibility is that God, out of concern for his own creation, even though not worshiping him, relegated the torn carcasses (terephah) to the dogs instead of humans because He thought it not right for humans to have to eat such poor quality and unsafe meat. This conclusion is supported by Aaron Zebi Friedman in his work Tub Taam Or A Vindication Of The Jewish Mode Of Slaughtering Animals For Food
The Torah also warns us not to give any man any dangerous or injurious thing by which his life can be endangered or he could be hurt. So -the Bible says (Exod. xxii. 30): "Neither shall you eat flesh that is torn of beasts in the field. Ye shall cast it to the dogs."…For thus the Bible says: "And flesh in the field that is torn," that means, that has been torn or wounded by a beast of prey. Such an animal we must not even give to a Gentile, but cast it to the dogs, because it is more strictly forbidden to us to eat anything injurious to health than to eat anything unclean on merely religious grounds…The Torah teaches us at the same time that dogs are beasts of prey which are not injured by the poison of another beast of prey, wherefore dogs may eat of an animal that has been wounded or slain by another.
10.9 At Deuteronomy 14:21 was God acting CONTRARY to his OWN standards of right and wrong when he provided unbled flesh to descendants of Noah specifically as FOOD? Yes or No?
My answer is a resolute NO. God himself was not acting contrary to his OWN standards of right and wrong. Allowing others to do as they please did not mean that he himself broke his own standards or that he approved of the acts and desires of others (see 'certificate of divorce' explanation)
10.10 If God wasn’t dealing with peoples of the nations of that time, then why would he give a law directly to peoples of the nations?
As has already been discussed above, the verse in Deuteronomy was directed to those under MOSAIC LAW, to the THE ISRAELITES, God’s HOLY PEOPLE. He was giving the law to THEM that THEY should not eat unbled meat. Therefore the PRINCIPLE God was demonstrating TO HIS PEOPLE, when compared with all the other laws regarding blood and carcasses, was the SANCTITY OF BLOOD (It cannot be successfully argued that the Mosaic Law does not stress the sanctity of blood itself as a substance) God did not HOLD non-Israelites and non-proselytes to his standards like he held his true worshipers to his standards. In essence, he did not care what they [non-true and non-approved worshipers] were doing [see the proof texts that have already been offered above]. Therefore, He allowed his HOLY people to dispose of their unbled carcasses by giving them to unholy people, for His holy people’s benefit (whatever that may have been, e.g., providing them an easy method of carcass disposal, allowing them to benefit financially from the disposal, ect.)
Additionally, to attempt to say that the law at Deuteronomy 14:21 was addressed to and given specifically to the “alien residents” and “foreigners” for the benefit of those alien residents and foreigners would be no different than attempting to say that the command at Exodus 22:31 was made specifically for the dogs and their benefit. It is silly to suggest such. The law was addressed to and was for the benefit of the Israelites themselves, not the aliens and foreigners.
10.11 What about the fact that semi-proselytes to the Jewish faith have been said to have only needed to follow Noahide Laws (which allowed eating of unbled carcasses), to be accepted?
The inclusion of the class of semi-proselytes (ger toshab), in addition to full proselytes (ger ha-ẓedeḳ) is nowhere clearly espoused by the Torah – neither is the idea of “Noahide Laws.” Those concepts were only begotten during the much later Rabbinical period, within the writings of the Mishnah and Gemara (200 CE and 500 CE respectively). Of the Mishnah, however (and the Gemara by extension, since the Gemara is essentially commentary and analysis of the Mishnah), one scholar says:
“It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah. The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party ...—these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah’s statements. Moreover there is much in the contents of the Mishnah that moves in an atmosphere of academic discussion pursued for its own sake, with (so it would appear) little pretence at recording historical usage.” (The Mishnah, translated by H. Danby, London, 1954, pp. xiv, xv)
J. Jacobs and E.G. Hirsch. “Proselyte.” The Jewish Encyclopedia[5]. pp. 221-222
At this epoch, too [after the destruction of the second temple], the necessity for determining the status of the "half-converts" grew imperative. By "half-converts" is meant a class of men and women of non-Jewish birth who, forsaking their ancestral pagan and polytheistic religions, embraced monotheism and adopted the fundamental principles of Jewish morality, without, however, submitting to circumcision or observing other ceremonial laws…In order to find a precedent the Rabbis went so far as to assume that proselytes of this order were recognized in Biblical law, applying to them the term "toshab" ("sojourner," "aborigine," referring to the Canaanites; see Maimonides' explanation in "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7; see Grätz, l.c. p. 15), in connection with "ger" (see Ex. xxv. 47, where the better reading would be "we-toshab"). Another name for one of this class was "proselyte of the gate" ("ger ha-sha'ar," that is, one under Jewish civil jurisdiction; comp. Deut. v. 14, xiv. 21, referring to the stranger who had legal claims upon the generosity and protection of his Jewish neighbors). In order to be recognized as one of these the neophyte had publicly to assume, before three "ḥaberim," or men of authority, the solemn obligation not to worship idols, an obligation which involved the recognition of the seven Noachian injunctions as binding ('Ab. Zarah 64b; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7).
The application to half-converts of all the laws obligatory upon the sons of Jacob, including those that refer to the taking of interest, or to retaining their hire overnight, or to drinking wine made by non-Jews, seems to have led to discussion and dissension among the rabbinical authorities.
The more rigorous seem to have been inclined to insist upon such converts observing the entire Law, with the exception of the reservations and modifications explicitly made in their behalf. The more lenient were ready to accord them full equality with Jews as soon as they had solemnly forsworn idolatry. The "via media" was taken by those that regarded public adherence to the seven Noachian precepts as the indispensable prerequisite (Gerim iii.; 'Ab. Zarah 64b; Yer. Yeb. 8d; Grätz, l.c. pp. 19-20). The outward sign of this adherence to Judaism was the observance of the Sabbath (Grätz, l.c. pp. 20 et seq.; but comp. Ker. 8b).
There was quite a bit of debate and disagreement in creating this theoretical class of semi-proselytes and the requirements that they needed to adhere too. All of this, however, has more to do with that late period Rabbinical bickering than it does with the actual Torah and Deu. 14:21. Their’s are simply opinions on the Torah, no different than mine, and no less subject to burdens of proof than mine.
[4] The Society does indeed make a mistake in this entry when they make the statements that Deuteronomy allows for both nebelah and terephah to be given to aliens and foreigners. In reality, the only word used is in the verse is “nebelah.”
No comments:
Post a Comment