Absolute Relativity
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2 NASB
Not add/ nor take away – How flexible are your ethics? Do you hold hard and fast to your own moral commandments? Are there ever any situations where they would be bent (maybe just a little)? Or are you a believer in absolutes—some things are just so ingrained in God’s universe that they can never be altered? Like idolatry, for example. It is always wrong, always a sin. There just aren’t any circumstances at all that would ever allow the worship of another god. And if that’s true, what are the other absolutely unbreakable edicts of the Lord? Murder? Lying? Adultery? Shabbat? Diet? Dress? Is there a “sliding scale” or are we never to wear clothing of two fabrics or plant a field with two different crops? (Leviticus 19:19).
None of us want to be accused of the “pick and choose” morality. We want consistency. We want to be found “good and faithful,” fulfilling the commandments. Sure, we realize that some of the statutes in the Tanakh might be particular to the time and place of ancient Israel, but even that concession is a bit uncomfortable. Like not knowing for sure which ones really don’t count anymore. The Replacement Theology answer (“The Law has been done away with in Christ”) is logically and behaviorally unsatisfying. Life still has rules. Grace isn’t the same as license. Everyone still has to get along. There are basic assumptions about right and wrong. No one can actually live in a society where lying is normal.
For centuries, theologians, philosophers, and moralists have struggled to explain and adapt God’s revelation to Moses in contemporary society. It hasn’t been easy, as even the most cursory review of contemporary rabbinic disagreements over application testify. Abraham Heschel makes a contribution:
“[Heschel employs the] Hebrew lifenim mishurat hadin, literally, ‘inside the line of the law.’ The image is intended to convey a flexibility in which the rigid, objective boundaries defined by Halakhah are softened and sometimes altered, so as to promote a value that may not be subject to objective definition. The term is used primarily in relationships among human beings, to teach the necessity, on occasion, of allowing another person more of a claim on oneself than legally defined boundaries would permit. . . Heschel is using the idea in a broader sense, to suggest a spiritual, and thus somewhat subjective, dimension to religion.”[1]
What do you think? Is Heschel correct? Is there a necessary balance between halakhah and aggadah? Is there a subjective necessity in religion? You might throw up your hands and cry, “Hey, what’s all this about? Too much thinking. I just want to know what I should do?” That’s what we all want to know. What should I do? The problem is that unless I am willing for someone else to tell me what I should do, I will have to think about it for myself. And then I will be faced with these same questions. Two seeds in the same field? Two kinds of fabrics? No sexual intercourse during menstruation? Ritual cleansing?
Who will you follow? Moses? Yeshua? Soloveitchik? Schneerson? Heschel?
Why?
Life is so much easier when you just do what you’re told, isn’t it? But I’m not so sure it’s satisfying.
Topical Index: Heschel, halakhah, aggadah, ethics, commandments, Deuteronomy 4:2
[1] Gordon Tucker, in Abraham Heschel, Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations (ed. and trans. by Gordon Tucker, Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, 2007), p. 2, fn. 6.
