The Project pt 9: The Divine Code – Breaking Down Chapter 2 of Idolatry

To preface this whole section in this series, rabbi Weiner’s clarification on this chapter should once again be stated.

However, this is forbidden for a Jew, because of the prohibition “Do not turn to the idols” (mentioned in topic 1). See topic 4, which explains that the basic reason for all the mentioned prohibitions in this chapter for Gentiles are precautions , lest one be drawn after an idol. But when there are practical reasons for a Gentile to enter a house of idol worship, it is permitted. This constitutes the basic difference between this command to Jews and to Gentiles. The Jewish prohibition, even though logically based, is obligatory in any case. But the Gentile is prohibited from a totally rational basis , so therefore in specific instances when there are other considerations in which the basic logic doesn’t apply, the prohibition is lifted. (footnote 19, Chapter 2, Part II, The Divine Code)

Everything in chapter 2 of Part II of the Divine Code is merely a precaution and the “prohibitions” there are only from a rational basis. These are not commands of the quality of the seven laws where tradition states that God commanded these laws. They are only rationally obligatory according to rabbi Weiner, but rabbi Weiner has no authority to make or declare these things to be obligatory upon Gentiles. Without such authority, he has to build a rational case. The author of the book believes, with Maimonides, that any form of idolatry, anything that can potentially lead to idolatry, is forbidden to Gentiles, but both of these rabbis contradict the higher authority of the section of the Talmud, Sanhedrin 56b. The Talmud through tradition prohibits for Gentiles only those acts which would get a Jew the death penalty and adds that other acts are not forbidden to Gentiles.

In light of this contradiction, the “prohibitions” that Weiner erects in chapter 2 are only his opinion, having no authority, and thus are not “prohibitions” but are only advisory, and should be tested and considered on a personal level, or on a community level. So I’m gonna check them out, topic by topic.

Topic 1 of chapter 2 has two “prohibitions”. Weiner claims it is forbidden for a Gentile

to read the books of idolators that concern their services, the practices and statutes,

to even fix one’s gaze on the image of an idol.

In addition, he states that a person should not ask an idolator about how he serves his god, about his customary services. He buttresses these “prohibitions” with quotes from Jewish laws (laws for Jews).

It’s plain and obvious that these acts are not idol worship, especially when the Talmud makes clear what is and is not forbidden according to our law of idolatry. Reading an idolator’s book isn’t idol worship, neither is looking at an idol or asking an idolator how he does his stuff.

Now it could be said, as Weiner himself included in his footnote that I quoted at that start of this blogpost, that these are only precautions. Yet it is up to each individual and his maturity to see whether he thinks he needs these precautions. In this day and age, just looking at an idol may make no difference to one person, and it is for that person, not a stranger who is called a rabbi, to decide the risks based on his personality. Looking at an idol may attract another to something, although I’m not sure if it will be bowing to the idol.

Can the argument be made that these “prohibitions” are objective, and obligatory on every Gentile? Or in other words, since they aren’t really prohibitions, can it be argued that it’s immoral or wrong for any and every Gentile to do the acts that Weiner forbids? Personally, I don’t think there is a solid argument that would make any of Weiner’s “prohibitions” in topic 1 of chapter 2 universal, rational or a universal human moral standard. He doesn’t try to build a case. So since he’s making the claim, the burden of proof is his to back up why these prohibitions are “on a totally rational basis.”

Moving on.

In topic 2, Weiner claims it’s forbidden for Gentiles

to listen to music of idol worship services

to smell the aroma of idols or their incenses,

to gaze on the decorations or splendour of an idol or its ornaments,

to benefit from idol worship, and

to enter a house of idol worship.

And here Weiner gives a reason.

The reason for these prohibitions is to guard against the danger of looking favourably towards any idols, so that one will not be drawn towards their service, or to believe in them or the legends of their actions. (topic 2, chapter 2, Part II, ibid.)

Now let me be plain. Having come from an idolatrous religion, and having some proximity to it, and also seeing how some people get into it, I can understand the risk and the advice. Yes, I still say “advice” and not “prohibition.” I think there can be something enticing about idolatry and there is reason why it’s not a good thing, not a beneficial thing, for some people to have proximity to such things. Yes, I said “some people.” There are people who may be more emotionally drawn to things, and the basis of their connection to idols (and people) is emotional and not rational, and thus they’ll build a faux-rationale around an emotional bond.

But then I also know that, in real life, in the age we live in now, not some future messianic kingdom, there are people who aren’t affected by idolatrous music or smells to that extent. The question again must be whether these “precautions” are universal, rational or moral. I’m talking about each and every one of them. If the reason for these prohibitions is so that a person will not be drawn to see an idol favourably, yet the person will not be drawn to the idol regardless, then the basis for the precaution breaks down and thus the precaution does as well.

I could add that other rabbis say that a Gentile does not have such “prohibitions.”

3) Can I go to religious events of Christian or Hindu family, such as weddings and funerals? Can I enter a church or idolatrous temple for such a function? Unlike for Jews, there is no prohibition for Noahides to attend such religious events, or entering places of idol worship. (question 3, Part IV – Frequently Asked Questions, Guide for the Noahide, by rabbi Michael Shelomoh bar-Ron, emphasis in the original) Q: How should a Noahide behave when he is invited for a wedding ceremony in church? Should he stay outside? Being present in a church during a mass leads to the impression that a person is in some way worshipping Jesus. But on the other hand it is not good to make the bride and groom unhappy. A: Staying in a church is forbidden to a Jew but not forbidden to a Noahide, especially if it causes sorrow to any person. (Joining Christian ceremonies, by Rabbi Oury Cherki, found at https://noahideworldcenter.org/wp_en/joining-christian-ceremonies/, emphasis in the original)

But again, rabbi Weiner is just talking about … well he says “precautions” but he keeps saying “prohibited” and “forbidden,” so … He reduces the clarity of his intent.

Either way, if the reason for Weiner’s “prohibition” is lacking, then the precaution itself is empty. So it’s up to the person. And, therefore, as I’ve said a few times now, it’s just advice for the person.

Now the topic of “benefitting from idols” is dealt with more later in the book. I’ll deal with the expansions when it’s time.

Next topic, topic 3, says … *chuckle* … well it directly impacts the quotes I gave from other rabbis. It forbids

joining in a wedding event that is held in a house of idol worship,

joining in a wedding held elsewhere but which is lead by an idolatrous priest,

joining any celebration or prayer in which the idol is mentioned,

joining such events if the focus is on idol worship and the participants are devout,

eating food of idol worship, and

joining in a celebration where idolators initiate anyone into their religion.

Firstly, I’ll re-emphasise the fact that Weiner chose to put all of these “prohibitions” in a section outside of what makes a Gentile liable to the death penalty for idol worship. So all of these acts are not part of the seven laws. So when it comes to “joining a celebration or prayer in which the idol [worshipped] is mentioned,” he can’t be talking about the actual sort of prayer where the individual participating is claiming that this idol is his own god, which would be idolatry-proper for a Gentile.

So are these things immoral? Well, it’s rational that a person shouldn’t support something evil. It doesn’t show a good moral standard if a person rejects idols, yet finds random idolatrous events to go to in order to join in. At least I can see some of the logic in this advice from Weiner, although he doesn’t lay it out the reasoning. I personally know the feeling of being in the middle of such events and wondering to myself why I attended and feeling as if I shouldn’t be there because it felt wrong, and that was when I was invited by a person who was part of that religion and bad feelings could have been aroused. So I believe that a case could be raised here as to why it is immoral to join such celebrations, not due to a divine commandment, but due to principles linked to the command.

I took a look at the footnotes he used to back up his reasonings. I didn’t find them all too compelling. But I guess that’s just me.

Topic 4 says that all the books of “deviant believers” are forbidden to be read because they are full of idolatry and the denial of God and that it is obligatory to destroy them. I don’t remember going through the “deviant believers” in the earlier parts of the Divine Code. So essentially, Weiner says you can’t read books by atheists, people who say there are two or more gods, people who say there is a god but he has form or a body, those who say God existed alongside eternally existing matter which he used to make everything, and those who actually serve an idol. Again, reading these books are not idolatry-proper, but Weiner forbids their reading and states there’s a positive obligation to destroy such books.

Let me be blunt. There is no obligation to destroy those books. But it is a good thing to get rid of them. Less falsehood in the world is a good thing. But again, Weiner gives reason for his advice, his so-called “prohibition,” or at least a clarification. It’s wrong to read these books in order to learn to emulate their thinking or practices, but it’s useful to read these books for reasons linked to protecting one’s own mind and understanding that of the people which such mistaken concepts.

As usual, it is about good, moral and understandable, the reasons why a person is doing something and whether they can withstand certain influences. For me, it’s not about blanket prohibitions.

If there are rational morals interlaced in this wordy chapter that is not part of the law of idolatry, it is that one should not support the breaking of the seven laws if possible and avoid the temptation to break or possibility of breaking one of the seven laws.

Topic 5 prohibits learning anything from a “deviant believer who is attached to idol worship and proselytises others to serve his idol.” (Why isn’t this just “an idolator?” Why all the additional wording?) According to Weiner, a Gentile can’t learn about idol worship in a factual sense from such a person, but can from someone who doesn’t have the attachment.

The wording of this topic is misleading. The first sentence, not to learn “anything” from such a person can easily be understood literally saying a Gentile is not allowed to learn a single thing from this “deviant believer,” not even sewing, mechanics or maths. Contextually, it may mean that a Gentile is not allowed to learn about idolatry from the deviant believer attached to that form of idol worship, or idol worship in general.

But either way, this can only be a “precaution” in the way that the idolator (I’ll just be blunt) can try to entice you to take part. But to make this a prohibition? To say, “you Gentile are forbidden from doing this,” that’s just too much. This is another situation where this should not be written as a law, especially from a guy who has no authority to write law for us. Again, this is a situation where what this subject should be given as advice to be aware of who is teaching you and possible agendas.

Topic 6 … hmmm … let me just quote me.

It is prohibited to engage in debates about matters of faith with deviant believers (those specifically mentioned in Part I, topic 1:7) and apostates (those who only go after the thoughts of their own heart and mind, and who don’t take upon themselves the obligation to both recognize the Creator and accept the observance of His commandments for the Gentiles). It is also prohibited to listen to their heresies or argue with them at all about the true faith, because in general their thoughts are still bound up with idol worship or atheism, respectively. It is also prohibited to fraternize closely with them, since they may lead one astray after their ways.

My instinctual reaction to this topic is “BS!” It’s forbidden??? It’s prohibited??? Again, the difference between Weiner’s Code and the Seven Commandments becomes apparent again in his use of the word “apostates,” as if the seven laws are a religion one can adopt. But, going back to the main point, how is this a rational prohibition? And the reasoning is essentially, “because they’re into what they believe.” Huh? It’s forbidden to even argue with them?

Is this morality? Again, is this simply and totally rational? Because, for a Gentile who is normally living in the midst of people of varying beliefs and worldviews, surely it is very much situational advice. The question of purpose and desired outcome of such interactions comes to mind and the capability of the Gentile. Again, whether it is moral or not depends on the potential of doing good and spreading truth and God’s law amongst those who likely don’t know any better. I just don’t see how this can be classed as a prohibition, something that a Gentile is not allowed to do.

I can understand the very last sentence. I see that wisdom in a biblical verse, “Blessed is the man who doesn’t walk in the advice of the wicked and haven’t stood in the way of the sinners and haven’t sat in the seat of the scorners.” The company one keeps is very important. But is it immoral to “fraternize” closely with “deviant believers and apostates”? The reason Weiner gives is that they may lead a person astray. So I guess a person in an idolatrous country will find difficulty making any friends, right? But then it will be said that this is only a precaution. But then why use words of prohibition or what is forbidden??? I know I keep repeating that point. But words are important.

Again, as advice, this is topic can enlighten a person as to the dangers of debate and fraternizing and arguing with certain people. But it’s up to the person and situation. In our Gentile lands, sometimes it’s very important to decimate or undermine the incorrect thinking of idolators and atheists, and debate and argument is one way of doing that. And influence doesn’t just have to be one-way, where the good person is lead astray, but the other Gentile who is into falsehood can be influenced to what is right was well.

I think someone will easily see how I’m gonna judge this chapter when it comes to a Gentile court deciding what to do with this chapter in the application of the seven laws.

Topic 7 forbids thinking about idol worship to ponder whether it is true or not. And why? According to Weiner, because it is certainly false. It’s also forbidden (yes, I’m using his words) to think about anything that can cause him to abandon fundamentals of “the Torah faith.”

I just … I just don’t understand. This book was written for a Gentile living in Gentile lands. The principles here are supposed to be true for all Gentiles of all times. Forbidding a Gentile to ponder on such matters as a rational principle? Doesn’t that contradict rationality? In our Gentile lands, many things are thrown in our faces by the media, by the territorial gang called government, by the educational system. It is almost inevitable for a Gentile to face challenging ideas and to find out for himself why he thinks one thing to be true and another false. This topic seems to forbid such thinking, saying that “a person must not be drawn after his shortmindedness and come to think he can intellectually arrive at the truth.” Yet isn’t this section about precautions that are obligatory purely from a rational or intellectual basis??? I just don’t understand what sort of thinking is expected from the author, unless he’s saying “just think like me, and you’re all good!”

Topic 8 is not a law or prohibition as such, just a description saying that a person who accepts an idol as true, even if he doesn’t worship it, is like someone who curses God’s name. Nothing more is added to it. There’s nothing for me to say about it. I could just say “oh … great!” There’s just not much to say.

Topic 9 states that the thought-crimes mentioned in the chapter don’t get earthly punishments. Well that makes the judgement about this whole chapter a lot easier for me.

The last topic, topic 10, says that if a person decided to do idol worship but didn’t succeed in actually doing it still gets punished by God.

…

*sigh*

OK, after going through this whole chapter, topic by topic, to cut to the chase, of course I would excise it or omit it from Gentile law books and leave it for families to deal with. I can’t tell what percentage of this chapter even impacted a person’s morality. Too much of it was just mind-boggling as to how it found its way into a book about the seven commandments. Well, that is until I remember that this is not a book about the seven commandments; it’s a book about rabbi Weiner’s Noahide Code which is a mixture of the seven laws with a lot of other stuff that is only advice with no authority and therefore is for a Gentile individual, community or court to decide for him/her/itself.

That some of these are called “rational obligations” or “precautions” makes me all the more cautious about the claim that Gentiles are obligated to observe “rational principles.” Who decides these rational principles? The rabbis? The Jews? The Sanhedrin? Or is it for us “shortminded” Gentiles? Is it the prevailing norms which change from generation to generation? Can a Gentile rationally come to these conclusions or must he have a Torah which the majority of Gentiles throughout the world, throughout history, may not have had access to?

Wow, this chapter did a number on my head. I’m gonna have to think some more. I may just end up on the next chapter. At least that chapter is supposed to deal with the meat of the matter. But, damn, it took so much of the book to just get to the details of the actual commandments??? For me, that’s alarming.