Laws is said to be the prohibition against idolatry. This pertains to any aspect of creation. Nothing in the natural world around us: neither plants or animals, neither terrestrial nor celestial, neither individual or groups. Not that which we produce: whether a material object or appealing ideology, whether for a fleeting moment or extended time, whether or not approved by others.
A person may learn from his or her observations without falling prey to idolatry. For instance, the sage enjoins: “Go to the ants you sluggard, consider its ways and be wise!” (Prov. 6:6). Recalling a time as a child I intently watched ants scurrying back and forth. Not only was I impressed by their industry, but their seemingly cooperative endeavor.
The Jewish tradition was not uniform concerning whether it is permissible to believe that other gods exist, so long as one does not worship them. Some thought this was acceptable, while others rejected the notion. Abraham serves as an example, in that commentators disagree as to whether he allowed for the existence of other gods, while agreed that he was committed to Yahweh.
There was also conjecture as to whether persons were obligated to lay down their lives rather than compromise their convictions. While permission to do so was readily granted. Resulting in some ambiguity at this point.
In any case, persons are warned not to delve into idolatry—lest led astray. One’s interest might pick up in the process. Accordingly, Jesus taught his disciples to petition: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (Matt. 6:13). Idolatry being a prime example.
Concerning blasphemy. “Are you still holding on to your integrity?” Job’s wife incredulously inquired of him. “Curse God and die!” (Job 2:9)
“You are talking like a foolish woman,” the patriarch replied. “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” Soliciting the commendation, “In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.”
Blasphemy was thought to fall into the category of revenge. “When someone is harmed by a person and seeks revenge, he may shout at the person or curse him. If the harm is great, the one seeking vengeance may not be satisfied by words alone but may physically strike out at the one who harmed him. In extreme cases, the vengeful person may not be satisfied till he kills.”8
Such is vengeance among humans. The situation differs concerning God. Whereas humans cannot physically assault the Almighty, let alone kill him; they can only express their hostility. Consequently, blasphemy is viewed with the intent to hurt God, even to erase his existence.
Blasphemy expresses itself most vividly when humans attribute evil to God . Recalling the faulty reason of an acquaintance, who protested: “If God gave me a mind, and I conclude that he does not exist, he is at fault.” Not unlike Adam, who excused his transgression with the observation: “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it (Gen. 3:12).
In more subtle fashion, blasphemy was thought involved whenever one fails to give God the recognition due him. Whether this pertains to his sovereign authority, or his benevolent design. Consequently, by challenging the assertion that God is good, and does good.
Concerning murder. In this connection, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (Gen 9:6). Not only is murder a disregard for the sanctity of life, but an affront to God—in whose image man is created.
The implications are extensive. For instance, “Abortion of a fetus, even in the most sophisticated of ancient societies, was a health risk for the mother. For this reason, the author believes that the Old Testament is concerned with the practice of infant sacrifice, which might be considered the Canaanite counterpart to abortion.”9
Or should a person leave someone to starve, it was said to constitute murder. Assuming that he has available means or could secure it to save the person’s life. Again, emphasizing the culpability of sins of omission.
If death occurred unintentionally, the perpetrator was to be provided security. Since retaliation might be expected. Bringing to mind the sage counsel, “Two wrongs do not made a right.”
Concerning theft. Of all the commandments, the prohibition against theft was thought the most difficult to obey. Largely because one is inclined to further his or her own interests at the expense of others. And then to justify the abhorrent behavior in some acceptable manner.
One was liable to punishment whether he or she brazenly robs in public, or sneaks into a house under the cover of darkness. Regardless from whim one steals, or the amount taken. As when failing to provide a reasonable wage. Whether deliberately or not recognizing the implications.
In Talmudic times, a fair amount of profit was thought to be one-sixth. However, it was allowed that the percentage would have to be adjusted occasionally, while weighing in the contributing factors. Falling prey to man’s predatory nature.
The prohibition against theft was best served by not coveting that which belongs to another. Instead, rejoice in his good fortune. And seek to emulate his industry, while being generous to a fault.
Concerning sexual immorality. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:23). “In antiquity, parents arranged marriages at significant financial cost, and the groom’s parents might easily have thought that they had authority over their son despite the marriage. Therefore the son must leave his parent in order to break the authority line to them, and honor his wife as is true counterpart, the central person in his life.”10
Sexual purity was to be maintained in this context. As a commitment, for better and for worse. Until life’s termination. Not begrudgingly but with hearty approval, as unto the Lord.
Divorce, although discouraged, was allowed in more exceptional instances. Resulting in a wide range of application. In some instances, restricted to adultery and in others for less compelling reasons.
It was thought that those involved in illicit sex would eventually come to realize the folly of their behavior, and complain against those who encouraged them. Once they realize the risks involved, and its meager compensation.
Concerning forbidden food. “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you,” the Lord allowed. “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it” (Gen. 9:3–4). Explicit in this prohibition is partaking of a living animal. Implicit is the notion of humane treatment. In brief, “Animals, birds, and fish may be killed for food in any way that man deems to be efficient and it should be done as humanely as possible.”11
Such as violated by the crowded condition to which animals are subject. Moreover, the crude slaughtering procedures so often employed. Not only with concern for the animals, but its adverse effect on the humans involved.
By way of extension, showing consideration for all forms of life. The beasts of the field, the birds overhead, and the foliage surrounding us. As a good steward of God’s creation, rather than a ravaging plague.
Concerning courts of law. Such as further the cause of justice, and cultivate moral behavior. As a deterrent to evil, and a means of cultivating a healthy society. As a task of prime importance, to be zealously pursued.
Worthy of note, the lex talionis (an eye for an eye) was meant to discourage extreme forms of punishment. Conversely, it allowed
