Punishments in Leviticus 20

[Gorgias]

Yes, post # 93 is specifically aimed toward a Jewish interpretation of the punishments in Leviticus.

Ahh… got it.

 

[Telstar]

So the ‘rules’ still apply.

Aren’t the 10 Commandments still in effect, today? It stands to reason that if something was wrong according to God in the OT, it must still be wrong, today. God’s Law is God’s Law, forever. That’s simple logic, don’t you think?

And the punishments do not because of social structures/orders??, which are in place for some protection towards certain sinners that would have been put to death as required by Divine Law, though I understand such laws were not dealt out easily, still they are not in place now.

When the Romans conquered the lands of Israel, the Jews were no longer free to impose all of their own judgements on the people, especially one as serious as a death penalty, without the Roman authority’s approval. That’s why they had to appeal to Pilate to put Jesus to death. It’s logical that by the time Jesus lived societies were much more highly developed, with rules of law that were enforced by whoever was considered to be the local authority.

 

[meltzerboy2]

A few things about the Ten Commandments (Statements, Words). The first half deal with mankind’s relationship to G-d and the second half mankind’s relationship to one another (Love G-d, love thy neighbor). So both Hillel the Elder and Jesus Who followed him got it right when they said the Law consists of really only two commandments. OTOH, each of the Ten Commandments is more fully clarified by the first five Books of the Hebrew Bible, the Written Law (Torah, Pentateuch). This means that to gain a more complete understanding of the meaning of each of the Commandments, study of the Law is required. Further, to better understand the sometimes elliptical, often culture-specific Written Law, the study of the Oral Law (Midrash and Talmud) must accompany that of the Written Law. Sometimes the study of Kabbalah is thrown in as well although this is not regarded as a Holy Book. Finally, if G-d’s Law is G-d’s Law as you claim, then how does Jesus “fulfill” the Law? This is an essential and sore point concerning Judaism and its response to Christianity. Why does the Law need to be fulfilled if we have an eternal Written Law AND Oral Law to fill in the missing information? What does fulfillment of the Law, or even further, supersession of the Law mean with regard to an unchanging Law of G-d? Interpretation, yes; reinterpretation wrt modern culture, perhaps; but fulfillment, no. The Law is the Law, an unchanging legal and moral partnership between G-d and mankind (not only Jews).

 

[Gorgias]

Why does the Law need to be fulfilled if we have an eternal Written Law AND Oral Law to fill in the missing information? What does fulfillment of the Law, or even further, supersession of the Law mean with regard to an unchanging Law of G-d?

Doesn’t Jeremiah prophesy that God will make a new covenant that will not be according to the Mosaic covenant?

 

[meltzerboy2]

Not a new covenant but rather a renewed covenant, in which the Law will be studied more vigorously and passionately, supposedly in the days of the Messiah. Actually, an even better interpretation is that the Law will no longer need to be studied because it will reside in the hearts of the peoples of the world, who will all know G-d. In either interpretation, however, there is no abrogation of the Law, just as Moses’ covenant did not abrogate the covenants of Abraham and Isaac, who preceded him.

 

[abucs]

Yeah, but I can’t think of the people of the OT being so immature.
Leviticus Laws seem to be all aimed at adults, though they are Gods children, they had freewill, able to make choices etc.
I’m not questioning the Laws as such, more the penalty for the sin, which you’ll have realised

Perhaps a lot of the laws that are made are enmeshed in the context of the times as are punishments. Perhaps also (in the Christian context) a new Covenant was needed because the times changed with regards to how societies lived and what major problems they faced.

 

[OneSheep]

I know of course Jesus asking them to cast the first stone if they be without sin, so I don’t understand how this teaching in Leviticus is from God.

Hi Simpleas!

I look at these laws in the context of the tribe, for the benefit of the tribe. Punishments are harsh because a tribe that is not obedient to its leadership is a tribe in danger. I think that the laws are addressing acts done by people that cause discord in families, and discord in families distracts leadership from its role in tribal well-being and survival. I have a picture in my mind of a leadership frustrated with all the squabbles they are called to ajudicate, and coming up with a formula for “addressing all this stuff once-and-for-all”.

Meltzerboy points to an oral tradition that softens the harshness of what one reads in Leviticus, and such softening also occurs in Islam; modern Islamic scholars say that the Koran has to be read in the context of the time. Modern Christian thinkers do the same concerning the OT.

And Jesus spoke of love and mercy, not death as in Lev 20 so are we really quoting the same God or someones idea of what God would want to happen to people that disobeyed him?

Maybe “someone’s idea of what God is saying needs to happen in order to keep the tribe in control” is more accurate?

If God’s word is eternal

I think that modern Catholics agree that this does not mean “literal interpretation of scripture taken out of the context of the Bible as a whole is forever applicable”.

We can look at the intent of Leviticus and see that it is meant to help stabilize their society, and that is the “eternal” part, that God wants us to get along with each other, and laws help us to do so.

I am quite open to the way of looking at Judeo-Christian scripture and history as one of trial and error concerning the image of God. Your own way of looking at theology also favors this approach, right? Does God actually punish people? Does He condemn people? Or instead, does He forgive? We crucified Him, but He forgave us; doesn’t that say it all?

 

[simpleas]

So the ‘rules’ still apply.

Yes, but I’m trying to understand why the punishments for said sins no longer apply when these punishments were the will of God according to Gods word.

When the Romans conquered the lands of Israel, the Jews were no longer free to impose all of their own judgements on the people, especially one as serious as a death penalty, without the Roman authority’s approval. That’s why they had to appeal to Pilate to put Jesus to death. It’s logical that by the time Jesus lived societies were much more highly developed, with rules of law that were enforced by whoever was considered to be the local authority.

Yes it seems to be the case that other people came along and altered the punishments little by little until were we (at least in the west) are now.
Gods own will for these punishments start to be ignored because another authority doesn’t treat their people in the same way.

 

[simpleas]

Yes. Again it seems to be the will of people rather than God.

 

[abucs]

Quite possibly.

 

[simpleas]

I look at these laws in the context of the tribe, for the benefit of the tribe. Punishments are harsh because a tribe that is not obedient to its leadership is a tribe in danger. I think that the laws are addressing acts done by people that cause discord in families, and discord in families distracts leadership from its role in tribal well-being and survival. I have a picture in my mind of a leadership frustrated with all the squabbles they are called to ajudicate, and coming up with a formula for “addressing all this stuff once-and-for-all”.

Meltzerboy points to an oral tradition that softens the harshness of what one reads in Leviticus, and such softening also occurs in Islam; modern Islamic scholars say that the Koran has to be read in the context of the time. Modern Christian thinkers do the same concerning the OT.

Yes, so all these ‘rules’ and punishments for said rules could be people writting them in the OT for the benefit of their people, rather than a God that is saying do this and don’t do that or you will suffer death in a lot of cases.

Maybe “someone’s idea of what God is saying needs to happen in order to keep the tribe in control” is more accurate?

Yes maybe, but then people could be killed for something that could be forgiven.
I’m not sure as posters seem to think that the people of the OT weren’t ready, but God could have taught forgiveness for a lot of the sins, maybe not for child sacrifice, but then I’ll be picking and choosing…

If God’s word is eternal

Maybe I don’t understand what ‘Gods word is eternal’ means

I am quite open to the way of looking at Judeo-Christian scripture and history as one of trial and error concerning the image of God.

Yes but then that would suggest that God didn’t really say any of these things to moses, but that moses believed this is what God wanted for the chosen people at that time.

Your own way of looking at theology also favors this approach, right? Does God actually punish people? Does He condemn people? Or instead, does He forgive? We crucified Him, but He forgave us; doesn’t that say it all?

Yes, but how I understand Jesus and God in this day and age is far removed in some ways from the OT.

Thanks for your thoughts

 

[simpleas]

What I’m thinking is people who quote Leviticus at others as though they should obey that law, should also quote the punishments as both are of God if they literally believe it was Gods word and God never changed his word, Jesus never changed the law either.
All the rules should be obeyed, not just the ones people think should apply.

Don’t ya think?

 

[ATraveller]

All the rules should be obeyed, not just the ones people think should apply.

I’m not sure if you want a purely Jewish perspective because you mentioned Jesus.
It’s a matter of faith. It’s not people per se. We believe the Holy Spirit guides those qualified and possessing the gifts of prophecy and teaching so it makes sense for us.
The Catholics answers you’ve been given are not that different from even Protestants. This relationship between all Christians and the Old Testament has always been this way. Presbyterians:

Of the Law of God

1. This law, after [Adam’s] fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
2. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
3. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
4. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
5. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.
   Confession of Faith: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Jesus never changed the law either

He just substituted the guilty with Himself.

 

[Telstar]

Yes, but I’m trying to understand why the punishments for said sins no longer apply when these punishments were the will of God according to Gods word.

@meltzerboy2 already said, “It is culture-specific to the era and time-specific to the fact that the Jewish religion was in its infancy. That is why the Midrash and Talmud must be used to bring such admonitions up-to-date so that later cultures can understand how, in which form, it applies to them.”

The Jewish understanding of the Law of Moses developed further over time, as their society gradually matured.

Yes, so all these ‘rules’ and punishments for said rules could be people writting them in the OT for the benefit of their people, rather than a God that is saying do this and don’t do that or you will suffer death in a lot of cases.

No, I’m pretty sure that the laws and punishments written in Leviticus were given directly to Moses by God. Why are you so dead set on refusing to believe that God could have given them to His chosen people?

Yes maybe, but then people could be killed for something that could be forgiven.
I’m not sure as posters seem to think that the people of the OT weren’t ready, but God could have taught forgiveness for a lot of the sins, maybe not for child sacrifice, but then I’ll be picking and choosing…

Do you also doubt that Jesus could have preached this? “Matthew 13: [41] The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. [42] And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

But, He also said in, “Matthew 10:[28] And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Which one of those scenarios do you think is worse? Ultimately, the purpose for the Law of God is to show you the way to avoid eternal damnation. He loves us as if we were the only person on earth, and died on the Cross to save us from Hell. He just wants us to love Him enough to give up all of our sins as a gift of love to Him. In the end, it’s all about the love.

 

[simpleas]

I’m not sure if you want a purely Jewish perspective because you mentioned Jesus.
It’s a matter of faith. It’s not people per se. We believe the Holy Spirit guides those qualified and possessing the gifts of prophecy and teaching so it makes sense for us.

It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.

It’s both really, Jesus never dismissed any of the moral laws, but he took away the punishments by taking on all sin himself and being the last human sacrifice?
Not so for the Jews people, they still follow the moral laws etc, but they do not carry out the punishments, at least I’m not aware of people being put to death for moral sins, yet other punishments maybe still carried out.

 

[simpleas]

The Jewish understanding of the Law of Moses developed further over time, as their society gradually matured.

simpleas:

Ok, so what God told them to do with proven sinners wasn’t really what he wanted?

No, I’m pretty sure that the laws and punishments written in Leviticus were given directly to Moses by God. Why are you so dead set on refusing to believe that God could have given them to His chosen people?

simpleas:

Because the people do not follow on in the punishments.

In these scenarios people can still live, and have a possible length of time to rethink, discover etc, I think that is why Jesus taught more about forgiveness rather than vengeance toward one another, and let the creator punish the soul after bodily death.
Not so with the God of Leviticus, he tells the people to put others to death, doesn’t sound too loving at that time.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, so what God told them to do with proven sinners wasn’t really what he wanted?

Oh, heck! What God wanted was folks to choose to do the good! Any attempt at law – any attempt – is a nod to the fact that people will get it wrong! So, no matter the ‘correction’ or ‘punishment’ or ‘consequence’… any rule points to the fact that we’re not fulfilling the will of God.

So, since He knows we’ll fail, He sets consequences that are appropriate to who we are at the time. The goal isn’t to kill, but to deter.

 

[simpleas]

I came across this from another forum which had the question Do any Jews promote Old Testament Punishments, and the below is part of an answer…

So, for instance, the religious death penalty was technically never abolished in Judaism, but thousands of years ago the rabbis recognized the injustice of a death penalty applied by human courts, so they placed nearly insurmountable obstacles around the death penalty. The restrictions on the level of evidence required and the qualifications of the witnesses are so impossible to achieve that it amounts in practice to abolishing the death penalty. Furthermore, just in case, they ruled that any court that meted out a death sentence more than a couple times a century should be considered invalid and tyrannical. Keep in mind, the rabbis did this during Roman times. The death penalty was practiced widely by pretty much every other religion and government in Europe and the Mediterranean for hundreds and hundreds of years after the rabbis essentially abolished it.

It pretty much answers my question that I thought anyway.

 

[Telstar]

It’s both really, Jesus never dismissed any of the moral laws, but he took away the punishments by taking on all sin himself and being the last human sacrifice?

First of all, what on earth do you mean by saying Jesus was “the last human sacrifice”? That makes it sound like you think the Jews practiced ‘human sacrifice’ as a regular part of their Temple rituals. Is that really what you believe? No wonder you’re confused!

As far as the other point goes, while Jesus took upon Himself the guilt of our sins, so that we could receive God’s forgiveness and have eternal life in Heaven, He did not take away the temporal punishment due to us for offending God. This is where Catholic confession and penance come into play. Penance is a pious practice that’s done by a sinner in order to try and repair all the damage that we’ve caused by breaking God’s laws.

Let’s say you break someone’s window or do some other sort of damage to their property. First, you should admit your fault and apologize to the person who owns it (confession of the sin). Then, he forgives you (gives you absolution), but you’re still obligated to pay for the damage to be repaired (do penance for the temporal punishment due to our sin).

Not so for the Jews people, they still follow the moral laws etc, but they do not carry out the punishments, at least I’m not aware of people being put to death for moral sins, yet other punishments maybe still carried out.

We are all obliged to follow the laws of God, including the moral laws, forever. We cannot change them, nor can we ignore them. But, if we refuse to follow those laws because we’d like to believe that Jesus already paid for all of our sins, and it doesn’t matter what we actually do, then we will most likely be sadly mistaken when we get to the end of our life and Jesus doesn’t even recognize us, because we never actually “followed” Him at all.

 

[simpleas]

First of all, what on earth do you mean by saying Jesus was “the last human sacrifice ”? That makes it sound like you think the Jews practiced ‘human sacrifice’ as a regular part of their Temple rituals. Is that really what you believe? No wonder you’re confused!

No it’s not what I believe, I worded it poorly, should have said Jesus sacrificed himself for sinners.

We are all obliged to follow the laws of God, including the moral laws, forever. We cannot change them, nor can we ignore them. But, if we refuse to follow those laws because we’d like to believe that Jesus already paid for all of our sins, and it doesn’t matter what we actually do, then we will most likely be sadly mistaken when we get to the end of our life and Jesus doesn’t even recognize us, because we never actually “followed” Him at all.

You may have missed post # 117. That is were I’m at.

Thanks.