Its Testicles Have Been Bruised, Crushed, Torn, and Cut Off

Only three more chapters after this one! Then, the to complete the Pentateuch I have 36 chapters in Numbers, and 34 chapters in Deuteronomy. That's 18 more days. I think unfortunately both these books are going to continue the boredom of Leviticus. If I can get through them, next is the "historical books," which I would hope will be better. It is frustrating, though, because it is so difficult for me to have anything interesting to say about these insanely boring books! Anyone coming to read this blog will fall asleep as quick as I do. It's not me! I'm interesting! It's God who is putting you to sleep! I guess I could talk about what a wonderful woman Julia Child was?

"You will not offer the Lord an animal if its testicles have been bruised, crushed, torn, or cut off." --Leviticus 22.24

Old Testament
Book Three: Leviticus
The Law of Holiness
Chapter 21: Priests and Prostitution
Chapter 22: Holy Food
Chapter 23: Holidays
Chapter 24: The Community Must Stone Those Who Curse

Well, these chapters are boring--we are in the wilderness. There's really just not much to say, and I am going to keep it short. Chapter 24 has one interesting interlude. It is the first moment of narrative in many chapters. A man blasphemed God's name and cursed it. The man was taken to Moses, then they waited till God told Moses what to do. (I thought that was funny. You basically leave a message for God; he will get back to you when he has a moment. That reminds me of the joke, a guy is talking to God, and God tells him that for him a million dollars is like a penny, and a hundred years is like a second, and the guy says, can I borrow a penny, and God says, sure, just a second.)

God tells Moses another version of the rules and punishments. Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death (this is Lev. 24:16)--the whole community will stone him. Anyone who strikes down another human being will be put to death. Anyone who injures a neighbor will receive the same in return--eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Lev. 24:19-20. So, on Moses' word of what God told him, the community took the man out of the camp and stoned him. (One thing I must say is I am not sure stoning someone meant killing them. In these passages there seems to be a difference.)

But here is what I want to ask. Isn't there an incongruence? Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Fine--I actually think that is not a bad justice system. It is not particularly liberal or enlightened, but I think there is a logic to it. But then, to take the lord's name in vain the offender is stoned? How is the punishment equivalent to the crime? Is God really equating a simple curse, in anger, with severe physical punishment or not death? This passage indicates once again the hypocrisy and childishness of God.

One might argue that it is severe enough to warrant that punishment, because "God" is the thing that keeps the community together. It is not the offense to God, it is the danger to the community. If such behavior is allowed it could begin the unraveling of the cohesion of the community. Interestingly, in that way cursing the "lord" is worse than killing a man. Killing a man is a personal, individual crime, not a crime against the community.

This explanation would also account for the public stoning. It is not enough for the curser to be punished, the entire community must do it, as one. It is interesting, is it not, how once again, when looked at through the lens of the leaders implementing rules to maintain the cohesion of the community, everything makes perfect sense. But to take the stories literally, the bible almost immediately falls apart in a morass of absurdities.

Is there a meaningful distinction between stoning and being "put to death"? (Stoning is the same, see Lev. 20:3.) What I cannot tell is whether when God says "put to death" is that again an operation for the entire community, or is it for some executioner. This question has interesting implications for the religious right murdering women's healthcare providers these days. God, in this section, is clearly saying that certain infractions are punishable by death. How do we square that with the rule of "an eye for an eye"? It only makes sense if the crime is a crime against the community. But if that is the case, there is a very clear reason for stoning: the community is responsible for killing the offender, no individual is responsible. If that is the case, any murderer to take it into his own hands to kill a healthcare provider in God's name is utterly misunderstanding the bible. (Not to mention the fact that Jesus was utterly opposed to everything in these rules.)

Again the bible is such a simple, cohesive (sorry I've used that word a little too much this post!) whole when seen as the product of a group of priests figuring out the best way to keep their flocks in line. Seen as the word of God? It absolutely defies explanation. Interestingly, the problem is I am looking at the bible too closely: I'm trying to dig into the truth behind it, where it really came from, what it is really saying. It's not supposed to be read that way! The audience for the book are exactly the unthinking plebeians, on whom such subtleties are lost anyway. Once more: the book makes perfect sense, on both levels. If you are one of the morons the book is intended for, it's great: "eye for an eye," easy to understand. If you are one of the wiser ones, it's beautiful: look at how they are controlling the masses right now over something as plainly "Christian" as "healthcare for all"!

--bibletoenail

Chapter 24 was about the punishments discussed above. Chapters 22 and 23 were very boring, one about how to eat food, one about the religious holidays. Chapter 21 was slightly interesting, because it again dealt with women and "unclean." Priests were allowed to marry, but only virgins. Actually, there are two levels of priest. Regular, and high octane. The high priests could only marry virgins. The regular priests could marry a woman, apparently, who had had sex, but not one profaned by prostitution, nor one divorced by her husband. It is interesting that they leave out the part about premarital sex. I think what they intended to say was that a widow would be okay. The point is that there were interesting property and "blood" rules. The priests shall not make themselves unclean by touching a corpse, except their closest relatives--father, mother, son, daughter, brother, or virgin sister. But not a married sister. The reason (according to the notes) is that marriage changes the "blood relation" of a woman, she becomes more closely attached to her husband.

Do you get tired of hearing me point out that no one in the world still believes this crap? Yet people claim the bible is the word of God. Absurd.