The Project pt 1: The Divine Code, Introductions

So here I begin my project, to go through books about the seven laws to see if and how they teach the seven laws. First book to cross my path is The Divine Code.

Now as I’m reviewing these books my own way, I have to decide whether to deal with introductions or get to the main meat of the book. What I’ll do is this: if the introduction includes something significant, then I’ll comment.

The Divine Code starts with three introductions: the Editor’s preface, the Author’s introduction and the introduction to the first section of The Divine Code called “Fundamentals of the Faith.”

There’s not much to say about the Editor’s preface. It mainly talks about some history and summarises the methodology of the author, Weiner. It says that his work is based mainly on Rambam or Maimonides but sides with other rabbinic sources if they are the majority. There’s not much relevant to my question about whether rabbi Weiner is teaching the seven laws.

In the author’s intro, rabbi Weiner gives a helpful piece of information.

These seven precepts are called the Seven Commandments for the B’nei Noah (“Children of Noah,” i.e. Gentiles, who are non-Jews).

It’s useful to know that these precepts are not simply for “believers” or a small group of Gentiles who have access to rabbis. These are laws for all Gentiles, all of non-Jewish humanity.

But then he makes a striking claim.

Included in the Torah, God also repeated and gave to Moses the Seven Commandments for the Children of Noaĥ, along with their explanations and their details.

All the Gentiles of the world were henceforth eternally commanded to accept upon themselves and to fulfill these seven Divine precepts, because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah, and He made known through Moses our teacher that the descendants of Noah had previously been commanded to do them.

Why is this a striking claim?

Weiner here claims, not simply that Gentiles were commanded the seven laws. If he had stopped there, then there could be no argument. But he says all non-Jews are commanded to keep the seven laws because God commanded them in the Torah and taught their Noahic origin through Moses.

Now the source of this convoluted command is not Maimonides. I showed that in a previous article. Maimonides was not giving a command, only describing different ways of observing the seven laws and the consequences of different motivations. The words of Maimonides contains no such command.

And God gave no such command that Gentiles must accept upon themselves the seven laws for those reasons. There’s no evidence of such a divine command.

In light of this, it looks like rabbi Weiner is creating a new commandment. Strange way to start a book that talks about the prohibition against making up new divine laws.

He then states the following.

They [rabbinic authorities] are also commanded to explain the Noahide commandments to the Gentiles, and to teach them how these seven mitzvot should be fulfilled.

Yet, according to rabbi Broyde, in his work, The Obligation of Jews to Seek Observance of Noachide Laws by Gentiles: A Theoretical Review, found at http://jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html, the weight of rabbinic authorities do not side with such a conclusion. Sure, it’s a meritorious thing to do, a nice thing to do. But a command?

This will definitely not be the last time I bring up the possibility of rabbi Weiner creating commands.

Look at this quote from the same section of rabbi Weiner’s book.

In addition to observing the Seven Noahide Commandments with their many details, a Gentile is commanded to act in the proper ways that human intelligence would compel him, whether these are obligations to God or to other people, or to society as a whole. Even though Gentiles are not commanded in detail about these parameters of proper conduct, nevertheless, God carefully checks and judges all the ways of every person. There are actions for which the individual or the society is liable to be punished, since such behavior is not appropriate for the human race, even though it is beyond the scope of the Seven Commandments.

So your issue is with the word “commanded”? I think so. I think “commanded” has a connotation that doesn’t fit what Weiner is talking about. If I take the word “commanded” as it is literally written in English, there is no time in particular where God gave this command to Gentiles. The seven laws were commanded to Adam and Noah, and this fact is put across like God spoke the injunctions to these men. But when did he orate the extra injunctions?

What about if Weiner is using this word “commanded” in the Jewish way similar to some of their blessings? For example, “blessed are you, Lord, who commanded us to light these candles.” I was taught that God didn’t literally tell the Jews to do this as it’s a rabbinic command, but rather the rabbis’ command is taken as God’s. For me, that explanation doesn’t fit this context. Rabbi Weiner can’t be telling the readers that it is the rabbis commanding Gentiles over whom they have no jurisdiction.

You see, I could understand the word “expectation,” that’s it’s God’s expectation that humans act to a certain level of decency. We’re made in his image as stewards of his creation so he can expect behaviour of a certain level. But Weiner did not say expectation; he said “command.”

Hmmm…

There’s not much I want to say about the rest of the author’s intro.

What about the intro to “Fundamentals of the Faith?”

The title itself is off-putting. “The Faith” in English refers to a religion. The seven laws, the seven commandments, are not a religion but rather a basic justice system. Unfortunately, later on in the book, I’m gonna have to face again Weiner’s depiction/corruption of the law of idolatry that adds a positive aspect to it. I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

But, simply put, the seven laws are to guide the righteous Gentile court. Of course, they teach the individual some basic parameters of behaviour as well for a personal guide. But the concept of the seven laws governing a court explains why each law has the death penalty attached.

To me, this is related to a point I made previously. I don’t believe the law given to Moses by God was to form a faith, which is simply a belief-clique or a belief-club. I believe it was national law. It wasn’t the formation of a religion called Judaism but rather the nation, the large family, of Israel. People of other nations or large families were not part of the Jewish family, the family of Jews. The basis wasn’t simply certain views about God but about “the nation-family.” It was about justice within that family, as Abraham should teach his family righteousness (Bereshis [Genesis] 18:19).

In a similar way, I don’t believe the seven laws were to create some international belief club but rather to be skeletal justice for the various non-Jewish families.

Yet the Divine Code is promoting some universal belief club, “the faith.” I don’t see that as part of the seven laws but rather something extraneous.

But, David, maybe the faith is Judaism, us all being under its umbrella, Jews And Gentiles believing in the same God.

It’s the same thing as I was saying before.

Look, it’s good for us all to acknowledge the one true God. Don’t get me wrong. But maybe The Divine Code is so big because its main aim was not to simply explain the seven laws for all of non-Jewish humanity, but to create the rules for an international belief club. Its first main chapter is not getting into the seven laws, a Gentile’s actual divine command system, but setting up “the faith.”

For people into “religion,” that may be a great starter.

Anyway, I’ve not started on the meat of that chapter, so let me hold back until I get there because I have a lot of positive views on that. Not all positive, but a lot. The first point is that God is not the subject of mere faith but of knowledge. But that’s something else. Let me move on.

The setup of the third intro I liked. God dictated the Torah to Moses. Good! So this ain’t just some dude’s opinion. The foundation is objective. Establishing the historic foundation of Torah, a national experience is also important. Knowing that the Torah can’t just be written text but needs an unwritten aspect as well is good. I know there are words from this author, rabbi Schochet, that tries to promote religion. It’s not too central for me to care. There’s nothing more about this third intro that really needs comment.

But the question is now this: I know the next section is not part of the seven laws. It is “Fundamentals of some Faith.” So would this section be shredded by me using my lens of what is part of the seven laws or not? Or would I give it a different treatment?

I can’t wait to find out. I have ideas already.