Morality – Old Testament Style VBS #4

Morality – Old Testament Style VBS #4 July 20, 2015

Editor’s Note: Vacation Bible School is not just for Christians anymore.   Here, in response to  questions (in bold) we asked, a humanistic rabbi  who now has his own Patheos blog gives an Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures view of morality.



Vacation Bible School-300x150

By Jeffrey L. Falick

Anyone who thinks that the Bible is about morality does not truly understand what kind of document it is.

The Bible (and here I’m referring to the Hebrew Scriptures) is a collection of many texts with many different agendas. It consists of a very wide range of material, including: the highly mythologized tales of the Torah (Pentateuch) with its multiple sources; tendentious histories about kings and kingdoms; and a broad variety of prophetic exhortations, pietistic poetry, novella-like narratives and wisdom literature.


There is certainly material that can be understood as moralistic. The prophets specialized in this and certain parts of the Torah (for which they and their schools were probably responsible) address social justice issues. But the emphases of the many books and documents that make up the Bible are as unique as the eras in which they were produced.

One of the greatest difficulties that many people have when considering the Bible is that they fail to understand that its texts were circulated and recorded (or composed) over the course of many centuries. Understanding this time span is critical. The economic and social system of the ancient proto-Israelites in the days of the Judges – which may actually preserve some authentic memories – is quite dissimilar from that of the later kingdoms. It is for this very reason that the Torah’s laws and stories are all over the place and frequently self-contradicting. They come to us from different sources representing varying schools of theological and political thought throughout the course of these great time spans. Even understanding this is just the very tip of the iceberg of a critical-historical approach. Every book must be similarly approached.

When people talk about morality in the Bible, they very often think of the Ten Commandments, or the Beatitudes, which are both heavy on the side of worship, but less so on good action. What are your thoughts on this?

There is certainly a large amount of worship-oriented material. The Priestly school (P text writers) was obsessed with the rules of sacrifice. But other laws are about day-to-day living and might be understood as very “action-oriented.”

Whether any particular law can be defined as “good” or not depends upon our own modern definition of “good.” When the Torah commands people not to abuse or wrong widows, orphans or resident aliens and not to deprive a man of his garment in pledge, those are “good” instructions by our modern lights. The problem with the Bible isn’t the lack of some good morality. It’s the presence of so many ideas that, after millennia of moral growth, we now judge to be unsuitable to modern conceptions of morality. So, for example, in the very same chapter (Exodus 22) that presents the above-named “good” rules we also find a law mandating forced marriage (or the payment of a misogynistic “bride-price”), a law requiring the execution of female sorcerers, and the imposition of the death penalty for people who worship gods other than Yahweh.

As for the Ten Commandments themselves, a critical-historical reading yields a very different understanding of these iconic rules. Most people do not realize that there are actually three versions and that one of them bears very little resemblance to the other two. Even if we focus solely on the two familiar versions, we find that the first few commandments are not rules for morality at all. They are, rather, establishing clauses for a covenant.

Even some of the commands about morality are poorly understood. The King James translation, for example, commands, “Thou shalt not kill,” where the original Hebrew unequivocally commands people not to murder. The admonition against adultery also doesn’t mean what most people think it means. In the Torah a married man who has sex with an unmarried woman is not committing adultery. He’s committing to marry her or pay her bride-price. It’s only adultery if a man has sex with the wife of another man. Jewish law is still interpreted this way.

The one that always gives me the biggest laugh is the commandment about “coveting.” It seems to me that coveting is the basis of our entire capitalist system! As it happens there are scholars who believe that this commandment should actually be translated, “Do not take your neighbor’s house…” and so forth. Would this not render “Do not steal” as redundant? Many scholars translate that one as “Do not kidnap.” The rabbis of the Talmud understood it that way, too.

What type of morality do you think exists in the Bible and how in your opinion does it relate (or not relate) to the current understanding of ethics, morality, social justice and human rights?

I’ve already mentioned the admonitions against oppressing women, orphans, resident aliens and so forth. In addition we have instructions to pursue justice, to limit the power of kings, to provide for the poor, and other similar ideals. These are lovely and very much in keeping with the kinds of values modern people want to promote.

That said, there is no need for us to rely upon a specific ancient text in order to act upon these ideals. They evolved in many cultures. I do find it interesting to learn that the moral evolution of the ancient Israelites included the incorporation of some of these nice concepts. However, this same Bible reveals much else about their times and values that are repugnant to us. Its stories are replete with genocides, the endless mistreatment of women, slavery, homophobia and on and on.

Rabbi Sherwin Wine, founder of Secular Humanistic Judaism, addressed efforts of conventional rabbis to locate their own morality in the texts. He called this process “kosherizing” the text. By this he meant that they would look into the text and emphasize the nice parts, re-work the iffy parts, and completely ignore the horrible parts. In the days when it was firmly believed that the Torah was a divine document containing eternal wisdom this was forgivable. But today? When liberal religionists freely acknowledge that it’s a human document? Their need to cling to the idea that it was “divinely inspired” produces some pretty awkward outcomes.

My favorite example of this is the liberal Reform Jewish movement’s selection for the Torah reading on Yom Kippur afternoon. Traditional Jews read from Leviticus 18, a tedious list of forbidden sexual relations that includes the ban on homosexuality. The Reform movement decided that Leviticus 19 would be a better choice. It is a chapter that includes reverence for parents, feeding the hungry, honesty and other nice notions. The problem is that Leviticus 19 also includes instructions for sacrifices, the proscription of sorcery, and rules about gaining atonement for having sex with a slave who was already designated for another man. So what was the Reform movement’s solution? They literally skip over the unpleasant verses. And keep in mind that the chapter is recited ritually from a Torah scroll that has no punctuation or verse markings. At every point of expurgation, the reader must search for the next acceptable verse. I’ve done this. It’s not easy.

Such are the lengths that liberal theistic Jews will go to in order to preserve their commitment to the moral relevance of the Bible. Meanwhile, they generally ignore teaching the critical-historical approach. This is a shame because that approach is the more relevant one, enabling us to enter the lived experiences of ancient Israelites and Jews.

**Editor’s Question** How does this differ from the Christian view of morality?


Falick25551e_9ad1b36d762444a0be678812295f4b05.jpg_srz_261_372_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srzBio: Jeffrey L. Falick is the rabbi of The Birmingham Temple Congregation for Humanistic Judaism in Farmington Hills, Michigan. Ordained by the (theistic) Reform Jewish movement, he later became associated with Secular Humanistic Judaism, an approach that combines adherence to nontheism with a celebration of Jewish culture and life. He serves as president of the Association of Humanistic Rabbis and on the Executive Committee of the Society for Humanistic Judaism, and blogs on the Patheos atheist channel at


>>>>>Photo Credits:

href=””>Al_HikesAZ</a<a href=””>photopin</aref=””>cc</a

“Köln-Tora-und-Innenansicht-Synagoge-Glockengasse-040” by Horsch, Willy – eigenes Foto (Zeughaus). Licensed under CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons –

"The idea that secularism is causing massive dysfunction doesn't really seem to fit the facts. ..."

Attorney General William Barr Wages War ..."
"We atheists & skeptics aren't having much impact on theism. But theists are wrecking it ..."

Attorney General William Barr Wages War ..."
"> “Barr has believed for a long time that the country would benefit from more ..."

Attorney General William Barr Wages War ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Partial Mitch

    “How does this differ from the Christian view of morality?”

    I do not think it differs in any meaningful way. Christians “emphasize the nice parts, re-work the iffy parts, and completely ignore the horrible parts” and they also generally “ignore teaching the critical-historical approach” or simply deny the validity of such an approach altogether. In all times and places, believers have needed to work hard to conform their scripture to anything resembling morality.

    Cherry picking is an art form among most Christians (though they don’t view their actions in such a light). They read a verse here, a verse there and use them to build dogmas and ideologies with no thought at all to context. They’re taught to memorize sets of verses, but looking at the full text is unnecessary, difficult (particularly for KJV addicts) and time-consuming. It is a lot easier to memorize the Roman’s Road to Salvation than it is to actually read the Epistle to the Romans. When they run into a sticking point, they are encouraged to simply put faith in God and stop worrying about it.

    Really, though, that’s the only way belief in scripture can work. The ideals espoused in the text are such a crude mosaic of different times and myths. Building a coherent, appealing narrative requires cherry picking and white washing the jumbled myths of scripture.

  • Elizabeth.

    Great VBS lesson!! Thank you! Love “kosherizing” the text. (I’m trying to do that less.)

    Agree w/ Partial Mitch that this sounds very close to what I’ve heard in Christianity. One approach I have appreciated is the Lutheran idea of a “canon within the canon” — count things “in” or “out” depending on their agreement with Jesus. Of course, whether it agrees with Jesus or not depends on your reading of the Jesus stories… but that approach does to its credit acknowledge the cherrypicking : )

  • Kevin R. Cross

    I think there is a difference. With due respect for Rabbi Falick, who would clearly have a better comprehension of this than I do, my impression is that the Judaic view focuses more on interpretation and concept, rather than the slavish following of specific passages (or at least his does. I’m well aware there are many versions of Judaism) which has long been the hallmark of most Christian sects. Ultimately I would count this approach as a healthier one more likely to result in a better moral and ethical position.

  • Hi Kevin: It really depends upon what era in history we’re talking about. The questions posed were about the Bible, not about the rabbinical interpretive process, so I confined my answers to that. But you are correct that the interpretive process was an integral part of Jewish Bible study and it was the means by which post-biblical Jews kept the Torah up-to-date for themselves. It was predicated on the idea that there were actually two Torahs revealed at Sinai…oral and written. The Oral Torah became the domain of the rabbis and their pathway to interpreting Torah in a new light. This was not a modernist “kosherizing” because they truly believed every word of the Written Torah was there for a divine reason even if much of it required the clarification of the Oral Torah in order to be understood. They believed that they were uncovering its central truths. Oral Torah, by the way, is why religious Jews don’t eat cheeseburgers! (And the reason, as well, for many, many other Jewish practices and beliefs.)

  • Kevin R. Cross

    Thank you, that clarifies things considerably for me. And confirms much of my initial impression. (I’ve recently come to realize that I actually know more about Hinduism and Daoist thought than Judaism, despite growing up a stone’s throw from a Synagogue. I should do something about that.)

  • Alicia

    I strongly disagree with this impulse of skipping unpleasant verses. Either read the bible or don’t, either value the bible or don’t, but if you’re going to value it, you’ve got to admit to the warts.
    I got quite grumpy a year or whatever ago when the Republicans decided to have a public reading of the constitution (in Congress, maybe?) and skipped over the icky bits about slavery and prohibition. That’s just cheating.
    If it’s a text you are going to base your life/religion/government on, you’ve got to be willing to negotiate with the warts. Even if what that means is explaining them away, you can’t just SKIP them.
    Especially in a liberal synagogue where as a rule most of the congregation won’t understand it anyway (you imply that they are reading in Hebrew from an actual Torah scroll, not an English translation).

  • Cynthia

    How common is the “ignore the bad parts” approach in liberal Judaism?

    My personal experience is with the Orthodox and Conservative movements, rather than Reform. Aside from skipping over some chapters in the youngest grades, I haven’t seen them pretend that unpleasant stuff doesn’t exist. There will be efforts to explain stuff that seems harsh, though. I remember one Conservative synagogue adult ed program that involved putting Shimon and Levi on trial for genocide, and them using the defense of necessity (since they believed that there was no other way to rescue their sister from her rapist). I also recall that there was an explanation of the story of Jepthe’s daughter which claimed that she was not killed, but merely remained a virgin for life.

  • mason

    Cherry picking and presupposition are the twin pillars of all the Abrahamic theisms IMHO. Having experienced the life of an insider and and now outsider, I find they all have a tremendous about in common, the least of which isn’t ancient mythology and political agenda.

  • mason

    “warts” is very euphemistic 🙂

  • Alicia

    It was intended as a short hand for the saying “warts and all.” I just reviewed it and was startled to find I never did write it all out.
    Another extension of that phrase was someone bitterly complaining about a perfectionist (spouse. parent, I don’t remember) “She wants me to be all toad and no warts.” I kind of liked it, anyway.

  • evodevo

    cherry-picking? Xtians have been doing this for 2000 years. I guess they just carried on what their forebears had been doing for the 1000 years before that !

  • mason