Judaism

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

About two years ago, I was on the BBC discussing the tragic bombing of a gay pub that left three dead. I referred to the bomber as an abomination, to which Pastor Tony Campalo, US president Bill Clinton’s spiritual advisor, replied that we had to love the bomber in the spirit of compassion and forgiveness.

Similarly, in my years in Britain I was used to hearing victims of IRA terrorist attacks, after having lost fathers or brothers or sons, immediately announce on air their forgiveness and love for the murderers, in the spirit of Christian love. I disagree vehemently. The individual who, motivated by irrational hatred, chooses to murder innocent victims is irretrievably wicked. He or she has cast off the image of God that entitles them to love, and has forfeited their place in the human community.

Amid my deep and abiding respect for the Christian faith, I state unequivocally that, to love the terrorist who flies a civilian plane into a civilian building or a white supremacist who drags a black man three miles while tied to the back of a car is not just inane, it is deeply sinful. To love evil is itself evil and constitutes a passive form of complicity.

I’ve already commented on a few things in regards to King Solomon. In other words, King Solomon did indeed do evil in the sight of the Lord. Horrible evils at that.

So I’ll be waiting for your response on exactly how Judaism views King Solomon-- and I’ll be wondering why King Solomon did not have the kingdom ripped from his own hands based on promises made to his father David too.

But let’s take another look at this.

Consider the tragic shooting that took place in another Christian denomination earlier this last week. These young Amish girls obviously did not do anything to deserve what happened to them.

In my opinion, as a Catholic, I believe they gave a wonderful testimony to the love of God. Actually, I think words fail to describe the heroism they had when standing for what they believed. I think, from your own Judaic perspective, that you would agree.

But it’s what the survivors later did which has really caught my attention. In short, dozens of Amish neighbors came out Saturday to mourn the quiet milkman who killed five of their young girls and wounded five more in a brief, unfathomable rampage.

About half of perhaps 75 mourners on hand were Amish. “It’s the love, the forgiveness, the heartfelt forgiveness they have toward the family. I broke down and cried seeing it displayed,” said Bruce Porter, a fire department chaplain from Morrison, Colo., who had come to Pennsylvania to offer what help he could and attended the burial. He said Marie Roberts was also touched.

See, here’s the thing. Seeking justice is a good thing. And I’ve never said it wasn’t. But seeking justice is incomplete if one does not also consider how those who are related to the transgressor are also suffering.

More specifically, the law doesn’t really address, as far as I’m aware, any real and authentic way to help those who have nothing to do with the transgressors sin against God.

The woman who was married to this man, a man who was apparently deeply troubled, is still very much alive and suffering just as much as those who had children murdered. In fact, in at least a few ways, she is probably suffering a little bit more than the others.

The others do not have to live with the stigma of having been married to someone who murdered little children for example. They are quite safe from any accusations which might blame them for their daughters’ deaths. The others do not have to now determine how they are going to make a living and financially make ends meet since their provider either. They don’t have to wonder why their husbands blew their heads off for example.

His wife, Marie, still has three three small children by the way. The wife also apparently lost an infant daughter nine years ago, something which apparently haunted the murderer.

Now I’m not trying to say the murderer is justified in anyway in doing what he did. Far from it. But I am bringing up an extremely important dimension regarding justice that the law does not seem to cover-- a spirit of mercy which is not necessarilly proscribed in a law which is mainly concerned with deterence and retribution.

If the author stated, unequivocally at that, that to love evil is itself evil and constitutes a passive form of complicity, then what does one do to those who have not actually committed any sin but are noentheless associated with the transgressor by virtue of their filial relationship for example?

Should they suffer too?

 

[Valke2]

But we’re not talking about simply creating. We’re talking about bringing order from disorder as various Rabbis have already commented. As I already quoted, it has been suggested within Judaic thinking that, like God, we have to take the world in chaos and create order and maintain that order. In fact, to fail to do so, the Torah apparently warns, is to let creation and society drift back to its more natural state: chaos.

Taking this one step further, R. Simeon b. Yohai once commented that God stipulated that the world was to return to chaos unless Israel accepted the Torah. He also commented on Israel’s joy in accepting it and Moses’ fight to obtain it — an appreciation of the fact that God’s kingdom on earth can be established only after struggle.

Another Rabbi comments as follows in What Judaism Means*…

It would seem to me that forgiving one’s enemies would constitute the most extreme example of bringing order from disorder. In fact, whenever God forgives us, he’s doing exactly that: bringing order from disorder and thereby preventing creation’s and society’s drift back to its more natural state: chaos.

As Rabbi Lamm himself notes, holiness involves not only a separations, but also reaching across the separations to extend grace and compassion to others.

If we are to be gracious and compassionate just as God is gracious and compassionate, then can you honestly think of a greater example of reaching across the separations to extend grace and compassion to others as one does when one forgives their enemies?

First. There is a difference (isn’t there?) between forgiving one’s enemies and loving them. We were dicussing, I thought, the commandment to love one’s neighbors.

Second. If we were to follow the commandment to love or forgive one’s enemies, aside from everything else, it would mean that everytime one fails to love his or her enemies (or forgive them), they would be committing a sin.

It may be gracious and compassionate to fogive one’s enemies, or it may be extreme folly, if for example, it encourages further outrages against you, your family or community.

 

[Valke2]

B
It would seem to me that forgiving one’s enemies would constitute the most extreme example of bringing order from disorder. In fact, whenever God forgives us, he’s doing exactly that: bringing order from disorder and thereby preventing creation’s and society’s drift back to its more natural state: chaos.

As Rabbi Lamm himself notes, holiness involves not only a separations, but also reaching across the separations to extend grace and compassion to others.

If we are to be gracious and compassionate just as God is gracious and compassionate, then can you honestly think of a greater example of reaching across the separations to extend grace and compassion to others as one does when one forgives their enemies?

The best way to bring order out of disorder is to clearly set forth the proper responses to how to deal with your enemies. Not to require forgivness or love of them. That’s a recipe for failure. And could lead to greater disorder.

As for forgiving one’s enemies (same as turning the other cheek?), I don’t see Jesus actually doing a lot of that whenever he intereacts with people in the Gospels. As discussed on the Jews for Judaism site, Jesus curses the Pharisees (Mat.23); threatens violence on cities that reject his message (Mat. 11:20-24; Luke 10:13-15).
Then there is Luke 19:27: But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." There doesn’t seem to be a lot of forgivness there for the Jews. And where does Jesus forgive Judas?
Paul doesn’t seem too big on actual forgivness of enemies either.

Admittedly, I am ignoring the “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Another biblical take on forgivness:

So the Philistines seized [Samson] and gouged out his eyes. They brought him down to Gaza and bound him with bronze shackles. . . . They made him stand between the pillars. . . . Then Samson called to the Lord and said, “Lord God, remember me and strengthen me only this once, O God, so that with this one act of revenge I may pay back the Philistines for my two eyes.”

This highlights, I think the difficulty one has in viewing the “OT” and the “NT” as two books that build on each other.

How do you address the words of the prophets?
Then Samuel said, “Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me.” And Agag came to him haltingly. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so your mother shall be childless among women.” And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.

Or, let’s take a woman’s perspecitve – that of Deborah:

Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite
Of tent–dwelling women most blessed.
She put her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen’s mallet.
She struck Sisera a blow, she crushed his head, she shattered and pierced his temple.
He sank, he fell, he lay still at her feet;
At her feet he sank, he fell;
there he sank, there he fell dead.
. . . So perish all your enemies, O Lord!

 

[Valke2]

Christian theology is based on the belief that God acted on humanity’s behalf, without its knowledge and without its consent. The crucifixion is a story of a loving God seeking humanity’s salvation, though it never requested it, though it scarcely deserved it. Jews, on the other hand, believe that God’s covenant was formed by the free consent of His people. The giving of the Torah is a story of God seeking to provide humanity with the opportunity to make moral decisions. Jews do not assert (that I know of) that God deeply desires to save all humanity. Rather, God grants each person the opportunity to choose his or her moral fate, and will then judge him or her, and choose whether to love him or her, on the basis of that decision. Christianity’s focus is on love and salvation; Judaism’s on decision and action. (see firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0302/articles/soloveichik.html )

 

[whosebob]

But it is still unnatural to will love. Even more so than to legislate emotion. It seems that if you don’t love your enemy in CHristanity, then you are commiting a sin. It is just as unnatural to pray that the murder of your spouse, for example, will find God’s mercy, as it would be to love them.

JMJ + OBT​

Valke2, peace be to you. Let us consider the Word of the Lord proclaimed by the Prophet Ezekiel:

10 "If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood, 11 who does none of these duties, but eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, 13 lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself. 14 "But if this man begets a son who sees all the sins which his father has done, and fears, and does not do likewise, 15 who does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife, 16 does not wrong any one, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 17 withholds his hand from iniquity, takes no interest or increase, observes my ordinances, and walks in my statutes; he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live. 18 As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity. 19 "Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? 24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die. 25 "Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his life. 28 Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?

30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, says the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.”** (Ezek. 18**:10-32 [RSV])

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

God clearly desires that the wicked should repent; so must we desire it and further such repentance as God gives us the opportunity to do so. To love and forgive our enemies is not to reject our right and duties of physical and moral defense, nor does it mean that we neglect justice and punishment of wrong-doing in the here-and-now. To deliberately fail to embrace and further God’s will – that the wicked repent and live – is sinful; for the victim of another’s sins, the first step in embracing and furthering that will is to forgive the sinner and pray for his repentance. No one who is alive on Earth is beyond God’s mercy; that is unless a man closes his heart to the graces of repentance, in which case God will bring upon him punishment, death and judgment in the time and circumstances it pleases God to do so.

In the Hearts of Yeshua and Miriam.

IC XC NIKA

 

[whosebob]

Christian theology is based on the belief that God acted on humanity’s behalf, without its knowledge and without its consent. The crucifixion is a story of a loving God seeking humanity’s salvation, though it never requested it, though it scarcely deserved it. Jews, on the other hand, believe that God’s covenant was formed by the free consent of His people. The giving of the Torah is a story of God seeking to provide humanity with the opportunity to make moral decisions. Jews do not assert (that I know of) that God deeply desires to save all humanity. Rather, God grants each person the opportunity to choose his or her moral fate, and will then judge him or her, and choose whether to love him or her, on the basis of that decision. Christianity’s focus is on love and salvation; Judaism’s on decision and action. (see firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0302/articles/soloveichik.html )

JMJ + OBT​

Valke2, peace be to you. May Our Lord bless you and may the prayers of the Mother of God obtain for you such grace that your heart may burn all the more fiercely with His love.

I would like to provide a more thorough reflection on what you’ve posted, but I don’t have the time and energy at the moment (I’ve got a touch of the flu-bug, I think.)

Certainly some Christians have a rather shallow understanding of the redemption of mankind that God has wrought in Jesus Christ, and all too often such mushy views penetrate the popular imagination. I would invite you to read the following essay:

A Biblical Theology of Redemption in a Covenant Framework
by the late Fr. William Most

I think you will find it interesting and challenging. Allow me to quote from Fr. Most’s conclusion (though I hope doing so will not diminish the possibility you will work through the entire text):

In the Cenacle, Christ made a new covenant in his blood. This covenant was remarkably parallel to the old on all essential points. For both covenants brought into being a people of God. In both God bound himself to show favor to his people, but he bound himself on a condition, obedience. In the old, that obedience was to the covenant law, the decalog. In the new, that decalog is not destroyed but fulfilled, but the obedience that basically creates the new covenant is not merely that of men, but that of Christ. He did not sign a document, nor did he say in explicit words that he would do all that the Father commanded. Rather, he chose a symbolic or dramatized acceptance. For if a man’s body is in one place, and his blood in another, that man is dead. In putting his body under the appearance of bread, his blood under that of wine, he in effect said: “Father, I know the command you have laid upon me, to die tomorrow. Here is my body, here is my blood: I accept.” But for men to enter the new people of God and come under the new covenant they must be members of him who made it, that is, members of Christ. They must, further, be conformed to him, especially in his obedience to the Father.

Finally, we are far from any legalism, in spite of the many mentions of law. For not only did the Father make neither covenant in order to gain, but also he did not choose his old or new people on the basis of merits. We must add that in both covenants, the basic reason why he gives his gifts is not the obedience of his people, nor even the obedience of Christ. The basic reason is simply that the Father’s generous love wanted to give. He chose to use the covenant framework as a device for giving. But that covenant is not the basic reason that moved the Father. The basic reason is, in both covenants, his love. The intensity of that love was such that it wanted to bind itself. It wanted to bind itself so as to reassure his people of his love, and thereby to move them to respond, not for his gain, but so that he might find in them the disposition needed to receive abundantly.

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

I would also like to provide some quotations from the NT concerning the focus on “decision and action” which you suggest is lacking in Christianity:

31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matt. 25:31-46 [RSV])

1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. 12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (Rom. 2:1-13 [RSV])

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” 12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood. (Rev. 22:10-15 [RSV])

2:1 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6 he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked … 4:20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also … 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. (1 John 2:1-6;4:20-21;5:2-3 [RSV])

Thank you for your continued dialogue with us, Valke2. I look forward to the continued exchange, and I am enjoying reading your reflections and insights.

In the Hearts of Yeshua and Miriam.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Valke2]

It is always a little strange to hear a nonjew talk about the “legalism” in Judaism. (I’m sure it is a little weird to hear a Jew talking about Christian doctrine as well). Especially when we get into the issue of “fullfillment”, a concept that is completly alien to Judaism. Our covenant is eternal. How can the commandments of God be fullfilled in such a way that they no longer apply? This makes perfect sense from a Christian perspective, I’m sure. But there’s nothing in Jewish theology to support it.

The words of Jerimiah, for example, were never (either before or after Jesus) viewed by Jews as referring to the replacement of our covenant, but rather a strengthening of it, so that there will come a time when we all will obey each commandment with a greater joy and ease than ever before, and none of us will stray from the precepts of Torah.

I did not carefully read the article posted above, but I did skim through it. I just don’t see why the commandments should have been abandoned. Judaism is a matter of deeds and spirit. Why negate the deeds? The Mitzvot are a means of incorporating our belief in God into our actions every day, in a multitude of ways. Not just when the mood strikes us.

In a real sense, the commandments are like religious “speed bumps” that cause us to pause during the day, and recognize the Divine and its infusion in everything we do throughout each day.
When I fullfill the commandment to wear tefilin during my daily prayers, it creates an opportunity for me to recognize my relationship with God. I may not be aware of it on certain days, but the opportunity is there. It is a time when I am not engaged in the mundane, when my thoughts necessarily are turned toward the Creator.

So, the legalism of Judaism serves a spiritual purpose. Every mitzvot (commandment) should in some sense reinforce proper ethical and moral behavior. IMO, it is really an appreciation system, not a legal system.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

First. There is a difference (isn’t there?) between forgiving one’s enemies and loving them. We were dicussing, I thought, the commandment to love one’s neighbors.

But isn’t forgiving people the same as loving them?
Leviticus 19:17:

Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.

Or again…
Proverbs 25:21-22:

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you.

And regardless of whether people deserve punishment or not, the Lord apparently despises when people gloat over the defeat of their enemies…
Proverbs 24:17:

Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice,
or the LORD will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him.

Please note again, I’m not looking to convert anyone here to Christianity. I’m just looking to explore the Judaic reasons why God has even offered forgiveness in any form to those who transgress his laws. This idea that God is looking to rivet those who do wrong with a hatred worthy of contempt without any recourse to forgiveness seems absolutely foreign to me.

King Solomon certainly did evil in the eyes of the Lord. Indeed, many times all of us have sinned against God and become his enemy…
Isaiah 63:10:

Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.

Clearly, anyone who goes against God’s will becomes more or less his enemy at least as far as their specific transgression is concerned. It doesn’t mean, however, that God is totally against the person themselves. Rather, God is against the things they do and is looking to bring them to repentance in this specific area in their lives.

I’m not talking about Christianity here.

I’m talking about Judaism-- and the fact that God provided such an abundance of various methods to forgive peoples various kinds of sins does strongly indicate that God is looking to repair the heart of the transgressor via the offering they bring before him.

Look at the Scriptural references from the Hebrew writings…
Psalm 5:4:

You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell.

Ezekiel 18:23:

Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Ezekiel 33:11:

Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?’

Lamentations 3:32-33:

Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love. For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men.

Hosea 6:6:

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Clearly, it seems to me anyway, the Lord does desire mercy over retribution-- even from the distinctly Hebrew perspective.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Second. If we were to follow the commandment to love or forgive one’s enemies, aside from everything else, it would mean that everytime one fails to love his or her enemies (or forgive them), they would be committing a sin.

But why does it have to be restricted to such a particular view?

Why does it have to be this either/or proposition?

Just as there are different degrees of sinning before good, I’m also certain there are different degree of doing good in God’s eyes too.

And just because one person can reach a certain level of goodness, doesn’t mean that God expects all people to reach this same level of goodness-- even though I’m sure he’s hopeful for this.

I’ve always maintained that God judges the soul of each individual in proportion to that which is revealed to them. More specifically, I think God judges the soul of each individual in proportion to that which is revealed to them in contrast to that which the he has enabled them to understand.

And you yourself admit that God does not expect the gentiles to live totally in accord with all the precepts of Judiasm-- and the reason for this is apparently because this is too hard for the gentiles to accept.

Still, nonetheless, God does recognize a righteousness amongst the gentile nations even if they cannot uphold all the commandments of Judaism.

Doesn’t this mean that some people, such as the Israelites, are essentially more good than others, such as the gentiles, and that God is still nonetheless willing to admit that these gentile nations have some essentially good traits even if they don’t have the ‘fullness of good’ as the Hebrews do?

Certainly, even within Judiasm itself, we see that the righteousness of the prophets exceeds the general righteousness of the Israelite people themselves. So, once again, we see that God does not uphold all people to the same standards-- and he is perfectly willing to acknowledge that some people, such as the prophets, are more righteous than others, such as the general population of Israel, without degrading the righteousness of the entire Israelite nation in the process.

Is there anything here that I’ve said which doesn’t agree with Judaism’s concepts of righteousness?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It may be gracious and compassionate to fogive one’s enemies, or it may be extreme folly, if for example, it encourages further outrages against you, your family or community.

But the Church has never, to my knowledge, resisted the incarceration of any criminal who has truly broken a law which goes against the natural law.

Rather, softening on the ‘eye for an eye’ aspects of justice, it has only sought to diminish the aspects of retribution in favor of mercy to bring about what Christians believe to be the greater justice of redemption of the criminal.

Sadly, especially within Christianity, many still seem to miss the point of Jesus telling these parables. Even if one is still not talking ‘spiritual’ salvation, it is still clear that God is willing to go to great lengths to save us physically.

More often than not, however, we seem to be like the older brother in the parable who simply refuses to forgive the younger brother. And I truly do believe that there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

 

[Valke2]

Nothing you quoted really deals with the issue of forgiving your enemies. In fact, I believe that it supports exactly what I’ve been trying to say. That you cannot require one to forgive their enemies. But you can set forth the ways in which we are to deal with them.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The best way to bring order out of disorder is to clearly set forth the proper responses to how to deal with your enemies. Not to require forgivness or love of them. That’s a recipe for failure. And could lead to greater disorder.

But I’m not talking about lawlessness.

As I said before, the Church has never, to my knowledge, resisted the incarceration of any criminal who has truly broken a law which goes against the natural law.

Rather, softening on the ‘eye for an eye’ aspects of justice, it has only sought to diminish the aspects of retribution in favor of mercy to bring about what Christians believe to be the greater justice of redemption of the criminal.

Valke2:

As for forgiving one’s enemies (same as turning the other cheek?), I don’t see Jesus actually doing a lot of that whenever he intereacts with people in the Gospels.

I would disagree. But I think before I get into that part, I’ll just note where the turning the cheek concept comes from…

The LORD is good to those whose hope is in him,
to the one who seeks him;
it is good to wait quietly
for the salvation of the LORD.

It is good for a man to bear the yoke
while he is young.
Let him sit alone in silence,
for the LORD has laid it on him.

Let him bury his face in the dust—
there may yet be hope. Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him,
and let him be filled with disgrace.

Please note, again, I’m not pointing towards verses which Christians apply messianic themes to them – I’m sure you’re already familair with those – so I’m not trying to convert you.

Rather, in trying to understand Judaism better, I’m attempting to point towards a verse which does indeed talk about turning the other cheek-- and the reason given is so that those who strike their cheek will be ashamed at what they have done.

 

[Valke2]

Please note again, I’m not looking to convert anyone here to Christianity. I’m just looking to explore the Judaic reasons why God has even offered forgiveness in any form to those who transgress his laws…

Since you quoted exclusively verses from the Tanakh, why would I think you were looking to convert anyone to Christianity .

The concept of forgivness is not alien to Judiasm. As you have pointed out, a great deal of our scripture addresses it. However, this does not negate the concept of hatred. It is not morally wrong to hate one’s enemies and, in fact, it may be morally wrong to forgive them under certain circumstances. What right do I have to forgive Hitler and the Nazis for the crimes they committed against my people? Who am I to speak for the dead?

In Wiesenthal’s book “Sunflower”, he recounts the true story of a dying SS man, who feeling remorse for the crimes he committed against jews, summons a jew from the camp (the author) to ask for forgivness. The rest of the book is dedicated to essays by different people addressing the question “would you forgive him?”
The Jewish writer Cynthia Ozick, reflecting on how Wiesenthal, in a moment of mercy, brushed a fly away from the Nazi’s broken body, concludes her essay in the prophetess Deborah’s blunt but poetic manner:

Let the SS man die unshriven.
Let him go to hell.
Sooner the fly to God than he.

In Judaism we have an expression for the worst of our enemies that basically means, “may his name be erased”.

Look at the festival of Purim. Everytime our enemy’s name is mentioned as we read the scroll of Esther, the congregations boos and hisses and makes noise to “blot out” his name.

Judaism recognizes that hatred is not always sinful. We believe that, while we should not "hate our brother in our hearts,” a person’s immoral actions can sever the bonds of brotherhood. Further, the Talmud clearly states that, regarding the hopelessly wicked (“Rasha”), one is obligated to hate him.

Forgiveness is often desireable. But hate can also be desirable when dealing with the truly wicked. It is sometimes more appropriate to wish ill, than to hope for one to repent. The scripture is filled with examples where we yearn that our enemies experience the wrath of God.

This is a major difference, I think, between CHristanity and Judaism. And I’m not the only one who thinks so: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. . . . Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Both religions believe it is important to imitate God. Jews hate the wicked because God despises the wicked.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Valke2:

As discussed on the Jews for Judaism site, Jesus curses the Pharisees (Mat.23); threatens violence on cities that reject his message (Mat. 11:20-24; Luke 10:13-15).

First of all, I don’t think he’s cursing the entire Pharisaic establishment in my opinion. In fact, I’d say he wasn’t cursing per se period.

He is, however, giving these particular Pharisees a very stern warning as to the hypocrisy they were bringing onto their nation by acting the way they did.

More than that, however, we seem to be seeing more than a warning. This rather seems to be a prophesying as to what the end results would be if they failed to listen to his words.

And, even then, his words are measured with a powerful statement, an offer of loving reconciliation toward the end.

Now, in regards to threatening violence to Korazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum for example, I don’t see that either.

In contrasting their actions towards those of Sodom for example, he seems to be saying that if Sodom had observed the miracles these Israelites had witness, even Sodom would have repented and it would have remained to this day.

In fact, if you read further, you’ll find this is exactly what he did say.

If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

This comes back to what I was saying above.

The Israelites certainly did not engage in the abominable activities that Sodom did. But Sodom, to some extent, didn’t really know any better-- especially since it was steeped in pagan practices.

The Israelites, however, being held to a higher standard than the pagans, most certainly should have understood that some of their teachings were wrong.

From the Scriptures alone, it is painfully obvious that God judges the soul of each individual in proportion to that which is revealed to them. This teaching is apparent in both Judaism and Catholicism as far as I can tell.

More specifically, however, I think it is clear that God judges the soul of each individual in proportion to that which is revealed to them in contrast to that which the he has enabled them to understand.

So when Jesus spoke the harsh words he spoke, he was essentially saying, “There’s no excuse for you guys to not get this. Why are you doing this? You realize that you are bringing destruction upon yourselves, right?”

Valke2:

Then there is Luke 19:27: But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of forgivness there for the Jews.

Well…this is a parable…I wouldn’t take the words too literally. Christ does appear to be using imagery of the king’s authority to display a point however.

Even more, if you read later within the Scriptures, then you come back to another important teaching within the church. Read the entire assage of Romans 11 and I think you’ll see where I’m coming from.

Valke2:

And where does Jesus forgive Judas?

And where Judas repent before Jesus?

I think Jesus would have forgiven him if he had come to Jesus and asked him for forgiveness. At least, I see no reason to think he wouldn’t have forgiven him.

Valke2:

Paul doesn’t seem too big on actual forgivness of enemies either.

Paul certainly seems to think, like many other Jews, that there was indeed a sincere righteousness amongst the gentile nations. In fact, he specifically says that when gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law-- since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.

Valke2:

Admittedly, I am ignoring the “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Yes. Actually, you are.

But…um…we’re not talking about Christianity, right?

I’d rather get back to the Jewish perspective on this matter if possible.

 

[Valke2]

But should we all not be forgiven, irrespective of our knowledge of what is revealed? Or is forgivness conditional? If I am expected to forgive my enemies, shouldn’t God be expected to forgive me for rejecting Jesus?

 

[Valke2]

To put it another way, how can I be expected to seriously embrace both the doctrine of forgivness and the doctrine of eternal hell?

 

[Valke2]

btw, just in case you missed it, I gave a long post about the jewish perspective immediately before you put your last post on. So it is right above yours.