Catholic Perspective on the Inherent Unfairness of the Noahide Law on Blasphemy and Its Incompatibility with Catholic Ethics (Code Orange)

  See Home Page

SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com

 This article is "Code Orange": Blasphemy

Catholic Perspective on the Inherent Unfairness of the Noahide Law on Blasphemy and Its Incompatibility with Catholic Ethics

The Noahide Laws, derived from Jewish tradition and rooted in Genesis 9:1-7, are presented as a universal moral code for non-Jews, including a prohibition against blasphemy. However, as Michael E. Dallen articulates in The Rainbow Covenant (2003), the Noahide law on blasphemy applies a two-tier standard, punishing non-Jews (Gentiles) more harshly than Jews for the same offense. Specifically, Gentiles are guilty of blasphemy for cursing God using any name or designation, while Jews are culpable only for using specific holy names, such as the Tetragrammaton. From a Catholic perspective, this disparity is inherently unfair and unethical, violating the universal principles of justice and equality rooted in the Gospel and natural law. This essay examines the Noahide position on blasphemy, as elucidated by Dallen’s quote, and refutes its two-tier structure, demonstrating that Catholic teaching upholds equal justice for all, making the Noahide approach fundamentally uncatholic.

---

Noahide Position on the Two-Tier Blasphemy Law

The Noahide prohibition against blasphemy, one of the Seven Laws of Noah, is intended to ensure reverence for God among non-Jews. However, as Dallen explains, the application of this law differs significantly between Jews and Gentiles, creating a double standard that favors Jews with a narrower scope of culpability. Dallen writes:

"Following the majority viewpoint, the Torah prohibition that governs Israel is narrower than the Rainbow Law is here. Hebrews are legally culpable only if they damn the Name — the Tetragrammaton — or (while it isn’t said to merit capital punishment) one of the seven holy descriptive Hebrew titles by which God revealed Himself to Israel. A Ben Noah is guilty if he curses God by any of the names or titles or descriptive designations by which he knows the God of Israel, the One God, the Almighty." (Dallen, 2003, p. 233)

This position, drawn from Jewish legal tradition (e.g., Sanhedrin 56a-b, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:3), reflects the following points:

1. Broader Scope for Gentiles
   • Noahide Position: Gentiles (Bnei Noach) are guilty of blasphemy if they curse God using any name, title, or designation by which they know Him, such as “Almighty,” “Creator,” or even generic terms. This broad standard means that virtually any irreverent utterance could lead to a capital offense under Noahide Law.
   • Supporting Argument: Noahides argue that this reflects the universal nature of their covenant (Genesis 9:1-7), which requires Gentiles to maintain reverence for God without the specific covenantal relationship Israel enjoys. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 56a) suggests that Gentiles are held to a stricter standard to ensure monotheistic fidelity across diverse cultures.
2. Narrower Scope for Jews
   • Noahide Position: Jews are culpable only for cursing the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) or one of seven specific Hebrew titles (e.g., Elohim, Adonai), as outlined in Jewish law (Sanhedrin 55b-56a). Blasphemy for Jews requires precise intent and the use of these sacred names, and lesser offenses may not carry capital punishment.
   • Supporting Argument: This narrower scope is justified by Israel’s unique covenant with God (Exodus 19:5-6), which grants Jews a privileged relationship and stricter ritual precision. Leviticus 24:16, which prescribes death for blaspheming “the Name,” is interpreted as applying specifically to the Tetragrammaton for Jews.
3. Theological Justification for Disparity
   • Noahide Position: The two-tier system is seen as a reflection of differing covenantal roles: Jews, as God’s chosen people, are held to a higher standard of ritual accuracy, while Gentiles, lacking this covenant, are judged more broadly to prevent any irreverence.
   • Supporting Argument: Noahides cite Deuteronomy 7:6 (“You are a people holy to the Lord your God”) to argue that Israel’s unique status warrants distinct legal standards, while Genesis 9:6’s universal covenant applies a simpler, broader rule to Gentiles.
4. Practical Implications
   • Noahide Position: The broader standard for Gentiles increases their vulnerability to punishment, as any perceived slight against God, regardless of the term used, could be deemed blasphemous. Jews, conversely, are protected by a more specific criterion, reducing their exposure to prosecution.
   • Supporting Argument: This disparity is framed as a practical necessity to maintain monotheism among Gentiles, who may use varied names for God, as opposed to Jews, who are presumed to know the sacred names precisely (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:7).

---

Catholic Refutation of the Noahide Two-Tier Blasphemy Law

From a Catholic perspective, the Noahide two-tier blasphemy law, as described by Dallen, is inherently unfair and unethical, contradicting the universal principles of justice, equality, and human dignity central to Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church, guided by scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium, upholds equal justice for all, rejecting distinctions based on covenantal status. Below, each Noahide point is refuted, demonstrating that the Noahide approach is uncatholic and incompatible with the Gospel’s call to impartiality.

1. Unfairness of Broader Scope for Gentiles
   • Noahide Claim: Gentiles are guilty of blasphemy for cursing God by any name, unlike the narrower standard for Jews.
   • Catholic Response: Catholic teaching emphasizes the equality of all persons before God, rooted in the universal dignity of the human person created in His image (Genesis 1:27). The New Testament explicitly rejects partiality in judgment (Romans 2:11: “There is no partiality with God”), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1807) defines justice as giving each person their due without discrimination. Punishing Gentiles for using any name for God, while limiting Jewish culpability to specific names, creates an unequal standard that risks unjust convictions for Gentiles. For example, a Gentile using a generic term like “God” irreverently could face death, while a Jew using the same term would not, violating fairness.
   • Scriptural Evidence: James 2:1-4 warns against showing favoritism, stating that partiality is a sin. Catholic moral theology, drawing on natural law, demands consistent standards for blasphemy, evaluating intent and context equally for all (CCC 1857-1859).
   • Conclusion: The broader scope for Gentiles is unethical, as it imposes disproportionate punishment, contrary to Catholic justice.
2. Inequity of Narrower Scope for Jews
   • Noahide Claim: Jews are culpable only for cursing specific holy names, reducing their liability.
   • Catholic Response: The Catholic Church teaches that justice must be impartial, applying the same moral standards to all, regardless of religious or ethnic status. Leviticus 19:15 commands, “You shall do no injustice in court; you shall not be partial,” a principle echoed in the Gospel (John 7:24: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment”). The Noahide law’s narrower scope for Jews privileges them, allowing greater leniency for similar acts of irreverence. This disparity undermines the universal moral law, which Catholics see as fulfilled in Christ (CCC 1953). A just law on blasphemy would assess the intent to dishonor God equally, whether the offender uses the Tetragrammaton or another term.
   • Scriptural Evidence: Acts 10:34-35 declares, “God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” The Noahide standard contradicts this by favoring Jews.
   • Conclusion: The narrower scope for Jews is unfair, as it grants preferential treatment, incompatible with Catholic ethics.
3. Theological Flaw in Covenantal Disparity
   • ** Noahide Claim**: The two-tier system reflects differing covenantal roles, with Jews held to a higher ritual standard.
   • Catholic Response: While the Old Testament acknowledges Israel’s unique covenant (Exodus 19:5-6), the New Testament reveals Christ as the fulfillment of all covenants, uniting Jews and Gentiles in one salvation (Ephesians 2:14-16: “He has broken down the dividing wall of hostility”). The Catholic Church teaches that the New Covenant supersedes distinctions based on covenantal status, applying universal moral principles (CCC 1965-1974). The Noahide justification for a two-tier law perpetuates division, contradicting the Gospel’s universal call to holiness (1 Peter 1:15-16). Justice, as a cardinal virtue, demands equal accountability for blasphemy, regardless of one’s relationship to God’s covenants.
   • Scriptural Evidence: Galatians 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” emphasizing equality in God’s eyes. The Noahide disparity undermines this unity.
   • Conclusion: The theological justification for the two-tier law is uncatholic, as it contradicts the New Covenant’s universal justice.
4. Ethical Concerns in Practical Implications
   • Noahide Claim: The broader standard for Gentiles ensures monotheism, while Jews’ precision reflects their covenant.
   • Catholic Response: The practical outcome of the Noahide law—greater vulnerability for Gentiles to punishment—is ethically problematic, as it risks unjust convictions and disproportionate penalties. The CCC (1928) affirms that justice requires respect for the equal dignity of all, and the Church’s social teaching, as in Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II, para. 29), rejects discrimination in legal treatment. A Gentile facing capital punishment for a vague utterance, while a Jew escapes for a similar act, exemplifies unfairness. Catholic teaching on blasphemy, as seen in the Church’s historical approach (e.g., Code of Canon Law, Canon 1369), evaluates intent and gravity consistently, ensuring fairness for all.
   • Scriptural Evidence: Proverbs 24:23 declares, “Partiality in judging is not good,” reinforcing the need for equal standards. The Noahide law’s practical implications violate this principle.
   • Conclusion: The unequal practical outcomes of the Noahide law are unethical, making it incompatible with Catholic justice.

---

Catholic Commitment to Equal Justice

Catholic teaching, rooted in the Gospel, upholds equal justice for all, reflecting the impartiality of God (Romans 2:11). The Church’s moral theology, drawing on natural law and scripture, evaluates offenses like blasphemy based on intent, context, and gravity, applying the same standards to all persons (CCC 1857-1859). The New Testament’s universal vision, as articulated in Acts 15 and Galatians 3, transcends covenantal distinctions, uniting Jews and Gentiles under Christ’s law of love (John 13:34). Unlike the Noahide two-tier system, which Dallen describes as punishing Gentiles more broadly for blasphemy, Catholic justice ensures fairness by judging actions, not status. The Church’s legal tradition, such as the Code of Canon Law, emphasizes due process and equality, rejecting preferential treatment. By adhering to these principles, Catholics uphold a truly universal ethic that surpasses the Noahide framework’s inequities.

---

Conclusion

The Noahide law on blasphemy, as elucidated by Michael E. Dallen in The Rainbow Covenant, establishes an inherently unfair and unethical two-tier system, punishing Gentiles for cursing God by any name while limiting Jewish culpability to specific holy names. This disparity, justified by covenantal differences, creates broader liability for Gentiles, narrower protections for Jews, and unequal practical outcomes, violating the universal principles of justice and equality. From a Catholic perspective, this approach is uncatholic, as it contradicts the Gospel’s call to impartiality (James 2:1-4), the New Covenant’s unity (Ephesians 2:14-16), and the Church’s commitment to equal dignity (CCC 1928). Catholics can confidently reject the Noahide two-tier law, embracing the Church’s teaching that justice applies equally to all, reflecting the love and fairness of God, who desires all to be saved through Christ (1 Timothy 2:4).