Targums are dated anywhere from the 2nd Temple Period to the middle ages, depending on the Targum. Some are more useful for determining the flow of early Judaic thought then others, depending on the date, however even later Targums are often collections of much earlier material.One…
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
But were Targums not more recent than Paul?
Also was it not a fundamental idea of Paul that his followers were free of the law?
1 Tim. 5: 1-12 “But refuse to enrol younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge”=spencer2;7368831]Here st Paul says not to allow young widows into the convent for fear of breaking their pledge with God and thus bringing condemnation to them. Does this mean that if a nun or priest decides he/she wants to marry instead that they are condemned?
yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.
This discussion of law really is off-topic and not appropriate to discuss here now.The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Ga 2:16.
Some of this depends on how one defines terms. Celibate means unmarried. Continent means abstaining from sexual relations. Levitical priests were of course not required to be unmarried, but did have to abstain from sexual relations at certain times.This may be an oversimplification, since many of our customs as Christians (including head coverings, which Paul endorses, or fulfillments of Jewish feasts such as the Tamid, Passover, etc) have their roots in Judaism. There is no reason to assume that disciplines such as celibacy vows ceased with the advent of Christ. For an example of this, Levitical priests offering sacrifice for their month had to remain celibate. This same concept is found in our priests today, who are perpetually celibate due to their daily offering of sacrifice. The original basis for such disciplines has not changed, and so are not disposed of. Your interpretation of a seemingly rather clear statement by Paul seems to rest on the assumption that Paul could not have meant that because no such vows existed. Perhaps you could provide a reference for your statement?
Yes, of course at the time the distinction between Christians and Jews was unclear.Not completely true. At the time of Pauls writting the lines between being Christian and beign Jewish were often entertwined. Moat all of our chirstian pratices grew out of the jewish faith. So the practice of Targums and Rabbinic teaching relivent to the subject.
I am sorry, I don’t understand this. Can you clarify? Thank you.I mean do being free from the law mean it was now ok to kill?
Thank you, Nathan.No, I am not, I apologize if I was unclear. Headcoverings are a custom, and Paul seems to allude to the fact that it is not a custom necessarily used by all the Churches. However, Paul’s personal endorsement of them is not based on cultural grounds, but rather he makes his appeal to the order of creation. This is why I think that it is a bit premature to brush Paul’s reference to headcoverings aside as referring to a specific context.
I am not attempting to state that Paul is mandating headcoverings for the Church, rather I am stating that Paul is using his personal approval and rationale behind headcoverings as an argument against the more general problem of liturgical abuse in the Corinthian church. His argument on his views about headcoverings are not cultural, because then his argument against the liturgical abuse wouldn’t have any force.
The Latin Rite (nor any other Rite) of the Catholic Church does not require perpetual celibacy for priests.That does not address the point, which is that many of our customs and disciplines arise out of Judaism. Also, Numbers 30 and the Targums speak of vows of widows, and there does seem to be reference by Paul to an “order of widows,” as some scholars have referred to it. Regardless of whether Eastern Rite Catholics practice our vow of celibacy for the priesthood, this does not negate the Jewish roots and theological rationale behind the normative perpetual celibacy of the Latin rite. It is worth noting that Eastern rite priests may become ordained if already married, but may not remarry or become married after being ordained or the death of a spouse. This is comparable to the possibility of the apostles having been married, and yet there is no evidence to suggest that they sought out marriage after their ordination. If this marital reality of the apostles nevertheless did not negate the Judaic roots of celibacy or continence when offering sacrifice, there is good reason to see the parallels today. Whether it is binding as dogma is not the issue. The issue is the root of the practice.