THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.ethics,alt.magick.order,alt.magick.tantra,relcom.arts.magick,alt.magick.tyagi From: "Joe Steve Swick III"Subject: Re: Jesus, the Law of Moses, and Sex Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:15:22 -0800 ___JSW___ Jesus urged his followers to keep the Law of Moses (which was much more than a set of religious precepts -- it was the civil law, as well), stating: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled (i.e., till heaven and earth shall pass, and all the prophecies come to an end)" (Matt 5:18). He then specificallly stated concering the Law of Moses: "Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, AND SHALL TEACH MEN SO, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5: 19). ___Erik Jordan___ I've always found Matt. 5: 19 interesting in that it condemned no one to hell. ---- True enough. Judaism recognized from the outset that non-Jews were not obliged to keep the full Law; they could still be "righteous" -- by keeping the Noachide Laws, they would yet have a place in Olam Ha-Ba... that is, "the good people of all nations attain salvation (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2)" (Telushkin, Nine Questions, 83). And, it may be of equal interest to note that the word "hell" never appears anywhere in the Tanakh. Nevertheless, Jesus seems to be saying that to TEACH MEN to violate the "fulness" of the Mosaic Law, or to ENTICE A JEW to non-observance was a very serious matter. ___JSW___ The ceremonial Torah, or "Law of Kedusha (holiness) was also a part of the Law of Moses. It was believed that strict observance of these laws made a man morally upright (tsdk), so Jesus' very NEXT words are important in what they teach us about the duty of Christians regarding the Law of Moses: "For I say unto you That except your righteousness [i.e., obedience to the Law of Moses] shall EXCEED the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20). ___Erik Jordan___ I'm not sure reading "[i.e., obedience to the Law of Moses]" into Matt. 5:20 ----- No need to read it into the text at all. He's talking to a group of Jews, who undertand perfectly well what "righteousness" (Heb. tsdk) is: "And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us" (Deut. 6:25). Jesus makes the comment in the middle of a discussion of the Law of Moses. He concludes by saying that the righteousness of his followers must be greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees, who he chides for "saying" and "doing not." He clearly understands the fundamental Jewish belief that 1) the Law of God is an attempt to perfect the world under the Rule of God; and 2) that unless one keeps the Law with the INTENTION of being moral, mere observance does not MAKE one moral. I believe that this distinction is one that Jesus focuses on repeatedly. OF ITSELF observance of the Law does not make a man moral. That does not mean that one can ignore the Law. ___Erik Jordan___ But the following is true [quoting JSW--]: Jesus then goes on to teach the "higher law" -- a law which operates WITHIN the restrictions of the Mosaic Law (see Matt 5:21-48 ff.) His final counsel on the matter is this: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not" (Matthew 23:2-3). ---- If it is true, then my argument is correct. the Pharisees enjoined their hearers to obey the four classes of Jewish Law -- Reflexive Laws, Laws of Ethics, Laws of Holiness, and National Laws. Jesus commanded his followers to "OBSERVE and DO" according to the teaching of the Pharisees, whom he criticized as hypocrites who "SAY and DO NOT." ___JSW___ Clearly, Jesus is enjoining Christians to keep the Law of God as revealed to Moses. This is not only DIFFERENT from what PAUL teaches... it is different than what the Christian Church decides in the First Christian Council. ___Erik Jordan___ It is my belief that it is not possible to fully observe Mosaic Law. ---- Which part is impossible to observe? Which of the ethical and moral co nsiderations of the Law are you willing to set aside? The Law teaches, "Do not covet; do not kill; honor your parents; honor the Sabbath day; keep the Name of God Holy." It enjoins specific moral, ethical, and holy practices, which, if practiced purely, will enable people to become moral, ethical, and holy. These laws were ostensibly given by God to man for this very purpose. By contrast, you seem to excuse your lack of observance on the fact that FULL observation of these laws is impossible. What?! Are you like the Pharisees, who SAY and DO NOT? Isn't it true that TO OBEY IS BETTER THAN SACRIFICE (even JESUS' sacrifice) and to HEARKEN than the fat of rams? (1 Samuel 15: 22; Proverbs 21:3)? Now, granting that we are human, I don't suppose that God expected that we would ever "fully observe" the Mosaic Law: "There is no man so RIGHTEOUS who does only good and never sins" (Ecclesiastes 7:20 -- note again that "righteousness" is equated with OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW). That is why God has always allowed teshuvah (repentence), which entails four steps: 1) recognition; 2) remorse; 3) RESOLVE to KEEP the broken Law; 4) sacrifice. Sacrifice need not entail an actual offering of an animal on a physical altar, as Christians well know. As Hosea taught: "turn to the Lord, say to Him, Forgive all iniquity and receive us graciously, so we will offer the prayers of our lips instead of calves" (Hosea 14:3). AFAICT, no Jew before Paul's polemic EVER believed that a man who disobeyed ANY of the Law was "cursed" by God. Rather, this cursing was LIMITED to those who violated the fundamental moral and ethical considerations found in Deuteronomy 27:15-25 (see v. 26). (This is why the Apostle Paul's arguments in this regard are not extremely convincing for the observant Jew; Galatians 3:10 is a MISTRANSLATION and POLEMICAL MISAPPLICATION of Deut. 27:26. Paul makes it cover the whole of the Law, when clearly that is not what was intended.) Violations of these laws fell into several categories of severity, some of them requiring the death of the lawbreaker. ___Erik Jordan___ It is the spirit of the Law which I try to observe. ---- LOL! Then why all this cavailing about polygamy? Many Christians I know appeal to the Law of Moses when it suits them, and ignore the parts that they don't like, "pleading grace" for their lack of resolve. In fact, most Christians don't even ATTEMPT to live the Law in ANY respect... but occasionally, when they feel the law supports their views (homosexuality, polygamy), they will appeal to it. They are worse than the first-century "anti-nomians." They not only do not keep the law, but they teach others that it is not necessary to keep it. Listen again to what JESUS said about this, Erik: "Therefore, the man who infringes EVEN THE LEAST OF THESE COMMANDMENTS and TEACHES OTHERS SO TO DO the same will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:17-19). It seems to me that Jesus is saying that, rather than in SPIRIT or in WORD, we may wish to keep the Law "in deed and truth" (1 John 3:18). The Law of Moses is a revelation of God's LOVE OF and MERCY TOWARD mankind, as manifest in his absolute JUSTICE (TSDK, which is the same word as RIGHTEOUSNESS). Justice (that is, righteousness) is God's chief attribute, AND JESUS ENJOINS US TO STRIVE TO EMULATE IT: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt 5:48). Similarly, we are enjoined by the Law of Moses to emulate this attribute of God's character... which again, is a manifestation of his love and mercy: Justice, justice shall you pursue (Deut. 16:20, JBS). Righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue (Deut. 16:20, Stone Edition). ___Erik Jordan___ Perhaps this is why he stated "better yea not burn" (sexually) instead prepare yourself for the day of the Lord ... this may have been a causal factor in the Roman Catholic policy of chastity for priests and nuns. __JSW___ Again, a misconstruing of Paul's instruction, which is a response to a situation not fully documented in the letter. I suspect that his advice was for missionaries (like him) or others who were full-time laborers... that if they could not remain single, it was best for them to marry... better to marry than to BURN [WITH DESIRE, or IN HELL for UNCHASTE BEHAVIOR]. Remember though, that Paul was himself married, as the scriptural record makes very clear. ___Erik Jordan___ Please define "UNCHASTE BEHAVIOR"? ----- Sexual relations apart from the marriage covenant. ___Erik Jordan___ Question comes to mind - does Mosaic Law prohibit premarital sex? ----- Strictly speaking, the Mosaic Law does not forbid sexual relations between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, or, even more tellingly, between a married man and an unmarried woman. This is likely because the sexual act itself was seen as contractual (i.e., a part of the marriage covenant). To have sex WITHOUT THE INTENT of marriage makes of the woman a zonah, or prostitute, and "Jewish law rules against [such a man]" (Telushkin, Jewish Wisdom, 138). Of course, in Orthodox Judaism, there is indeed a strong prohibition against premarital sex, and this is reinforced by not allowing an unmarried woman to purify herself in the mikveh following her monthly period (meaning, of course she remains ritually unclean and unfit for sex). Furthermore, in the ancient world, chastity was very highly valued. It was well understood that a woman who had engaged in sex with another man prior to marriage would find it *extremely* difficult to marry. This served as a bar against such behaviors. ___Erik Jordan___ Does Mosaic Law prohibit prostitution? ----- No, it does not. And, it considers a "prostitute" to be any single woman who has ever engaged in sex with a man who did not intend to take her for a wife. Therefore, a woman already married and having sex with another man is not a prostitute, but an adultress, which was (at least technically) a capital offense. ___Erik Jordan___ ... homosexuality (male)? ---- Yes, this is not only forbidden (Leviticus 18:22), but is considered a capital offense (Leviticus 20:3) : ___Erik Jordan___ ... homosexuality (female)? ---- " 'You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or the land of Canaan to which I am taking you' (Leviticus 18:3). . . What did they do? A man would marry a man and a woman marry a woman" (Sifra Leviticus on 18:3). ___Erik Jordan___ ... incest? ---- Yes, this was illegal. In fact the incest prohibitions were extremely strict... including several relationships that would be considered absolutely legal in the United States today. These laws proscribing relations between near kin are presented in detail in Leviticus 18. In an interesting case, the Apostle Paul excommunicates a man for having sexual relations with "his father's wife" (apparently NOT his mother...hmmmm) in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. ___Erik Jordan___ ... rape? ---- Absolutely forbidden. If a man raped an unmarried woman, he was required to give restitution, and perhaps marry the woman. If he raped a woman who was betrothed or married, it was a capital offense. Later, the definition of rape was extended to include the use of physical force against one's spouse to coerce sex. ___Erik Jordan___ I ask these questions of you do to your obviously extensive study of the Bible? (I admit knowing the quick answer to some of these ... but then I don't know Hebrew nor Aramaic). ---- I play at Hebrew, and know a little Greek. ___JSW___ The quote from Matthew 19 above was part of a response Jesus gave when questioned about marriage. You will recall that in his day, there were two main schools of thinking on the subject of marriage and divorce: that of Hillel, which interpreted the passage in Deuteronomy as meaning a man could divorce his wife for any reason; and the school of Shammai, which believed that "any blemish" had special reference to sexual misconduct. Jesus clearly sided with the stricter interpretation of Shammai: "3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause [i.e., as Hillel suggested]? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:3-9). As for polygamy: Jesus does not directly deal with this subject, but his exclusive language here -- especially his appeal to Adam and Eve as the model of God's intent in such matters (in the beginning... from the beginning), might be seen to not give much room for polygamy. However, the Law of Moses allowed for such marriages, and nothing in the NT expressly overturns that law. Paul's letters to gentiles are written to communities in which polygamy is not common. For this reason, it is logical to read his statements to them, that "a bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife (1 Tim 3:2) and "let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well" (1 Tim. 3:12), as restricting the practice among gentiles. However, GRAMMATICALLY, both of these passages allow for plurality. The Gk. mia may mean the first of a series, as in the first day of the week, etc. Note that this is different than the word Paul uses to describe a WIFE who has married ONE MAN in 1 Tim. 5:9. Here, instead of MIA (first of a series), he uses HEIS (numerically "one"). If we interpret 1 Tim 3:2, 12 with this in mind, then we may come away with a very different understanding: a bishop must be the husband of HIS FIRST WIFE.... deacons must be husbands of their FIRST WIVES (i.e., they must not have DIVORCED). So, this one can be argued both ways. My point is that you may be attributing to Paul something very different than anything Paul taught. ___Erik Jordan___ This argument is familiar. Which do you consider to have been his intent? I've always considered Paul very clever. ---- I think Paul didn't wish to upset the applecart: he discourages gentile Christians from contracting plural marriages, but leaves wiggle room for a principle allowed (and occasionally demanded) by Mosaic Law. ___Erik Jordan___ Marketing! ---- Indeed. Paul's move to actively proselyte gentiles into the Christian body saved it from an early death. There were simply not enough Jewish followers to sustain the movement, and the relaxing of the two aspects of Jewish Law most difficult for gentiles -- the Law of Kashrut and Circumcision-- was, politically speaking, most savvy. ___JSW___ And, there is nothing to indicate that Jesus was somehow more "liberal" in his views than any modern preacher when it came to marriage and sex. ____Erik Jordan___ He would seem in someways more liberal and in others more conservative. Christ's strict interpretation of divorce laws is fairly conservative ... His aversion to the throwing of stones does liberalize the same laws a bit. ----- This is a common Christian view. Actually, while adultery was a capital crime, it was generally not prosecuted fully. Again, Telushkin explains: "Although the Bible designated adultery as a capital offense (Leviticus 20:10), the Torah and Talmud imposed so many judicial requirements for conviction (e.g., requiring two witnesses who had warned the couple in advance) that the law, in effect, became a dead letter. "Yet, when adultery clearly had occurred, two lesser, but very severe, penalties were imposed: "1. The adultress was both prohibited from remaining married to her husband (even if he was willing to forgive her) and forbidden to marry her lover. "2. A child who ensued from the adulterous relationship was characterized as a *mamzer* (basteard), and forbidden to marry other Jews besides *mamzerim*. (Significantly, the offspring of a relationship between two unmarried people was not regarded as either a "bastard" or "illegitimate.") "These two laws' severity caused many tenderhearted Rabbis to deny that adultery had occurred even in instances where it clearly had. Thus, the sixteenth-century Code of Jewish Law, the Shulkhan Arukh, ruled that if a woman gave birth to a child up to a full year after her husband had gone off to sea, we simply assume that she had a very long pregnancy. (Even ha-Ezer 4:14). Rabbi Michael Gold has observed, '[The Rabbis] were willing to ignore biological facts to avoid imposing the stigma of 'bastard' on the newly born child' " (Telushkin, Jewish Wisdom, 139-40). So, Jesus' actions seem consistent with Rabbinical tradition, as are his comments in Matthew 19:9. In fact, this last verse is evidence that women who committed adultery were not frequently subject to capital punishment. ___JSW___ May I ask "what specifically IS your affiliation, if any?" ---- In most respects, I'm a Fundamentalist Mormon (that is, I believe in polygamy). Kindest, JSW
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|