Punishments in Leviticus 20

[simpleas]

Yes, and many did not.

Exactly…

So… what, exactly, do you think they’d be able to have implemented back then? A national police force and a system of penitentiaries? C’mon…

Make fun as you wish. I don’t think the people of that day were as spiritually immature or uneducated as is made out. God could have worked on them as Jesus did without commanding they kill certain sinners.

 

[simpleas]

Strange thought, Jesus was killed by the same minds that were taught to kill blasphemers.

Kind of a circular act or something…

 

[Gorgias]

Exactly…

Totally not getting where you’re going. You asked whether people were in a position to want Jesus and His message, or even wanted Him? I said “yes”. That doesn’t imply that all will choose Him! Would would it necessarily imply universal acceptance?

Make fun as you wish.

Not making fun. Just pointing out that they didn’t have the social structures in place then that we do now; these structures make it possible to set non-capital punishments and provide for rehabilitation.

I don’t think the people of that day were as spiritually immature or uneducated as is made out.

Really? OK, then – Move forward in time from Moses’ day, about 3000 years. Up through the age of feudalism in the West, how good was our “mature, educated culture” back then at respecting human life? How good was it at setting humane, non-capital punishments? And you’re suggesting that they were better, 3000 years before that?

God could have worked on them as Jesus did without commanding they kill certain sinners.

God could have. He chose to accept them where they were. And, He moved them to where Jesus was trying to take them. And, He’s doing the same with us today.

Strange thought, Jesus was killed by the same minds that were taught to kill blasphemers.

Erm… they wanted Jesus killed because they concluded He was blaspheming!

Yeah… maybe there’s an irony in there: if you can’t recognize God, how can you hope to be able to obey his command about discerning blasphemy???

 

[Telstar]

So why are those punishments not relevant today according to Jewish Law?

I thought I made my point very clear. The people in those times were brutal and barbaric. They were nothing like people now, who live in a much more (supposedly) “civilized” society like we live in, today. God needed to be very clear and impose punishments that they could understand and relate to. They had not developed enough, intellectually, nor did they even have any real organized system of government. Mentally, they behaved much more like errant children running wild than civilized adults. Have you ever read Lord of the Flies?

 

[meltzerboy2]

One example which comes to mind is that, although stoning was the punishment for adultery, it was probably rarely carried out. Why not? Because, according to the Oral Law, the punishment demanded a very high threshold to be executed. In particular, the law required two valid eyewitnesses to the crime as well as knowledge on the part of the participants that what they were doing is sinful.

Many of these laws are on the Books (literally) but are not enforced due to mitigating circumstances, which the Oral Torah explains. Thus the Written Law serves as a preventive measure not to engage in certain practices, while the Oral Law further explains under which circumstances punishment is to be meted out and under which circumstances a warning would suffice. The Written Law can be compared to a blueprint of the Law, whereas the Oral Law fills in the particulars. It is impossible to fully understand the meaning of the Written Law without using the Oral Law as a lens of clarification. Some (Orthodox) Jews also use the Kabbalah as a means of interpreting the Written Law although the Kabbalah is not in itself regarded as a holy text.

 

[TheLittleLady]

As someone else said, same God, different people.

 

[Sedona]

Good evening Meltzerboy and thank you for the reply. I was aware that the laws were applied as little as possible, and I think there had to have been over thirty-something judges as well, yet the laws were indeed applied on occasion, and they were ostensibly given to humankind by their God. To me it indicates that while the Sanhedrins seemed to have attempted to apply some practicality and common sense to the execution of these laws, that does little to mitigate the ferocity in intent, which reveals something of the mind of the framer, or issuer of these laws, and this is what flummoxes the more secular among us in what we feel are more enlightened times. To many of us, these laws are mile markers on a road that leads to some very existential questions as to the nature of the God of Abraham.So in the case of Mosaic law, I think the consternation is not with the tribe that applied them, but with the nature of whatever sort of thing that would issue them in the first place. It’s an honest question. Do Rabbinical teachings have something that addresses these concerns about the mind that framed these laws?

Thank you as always.

 

[Kris34]

Actually they happen frequently today. Sadly.

 

[Kris34]

He was killed because He was described as a threat to the Roman Empire by people who thought He was blasphemous for saying is God. Which He wasn’t cause He is God. But really for the events to work and believed He had to publicly die and of something other than health or old ago. No one would have realized He died and rose.

 

[kainosktisis]

I look at it as Jesus fulfilling the requirements of the Law, & since He is God the Son, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity, He clarifies the Torah & He transfigures it in the New Covenant in His blood.

I had previously heard Fr. Simon on his radio program on Relevant Radio talking about these differences in the Law in the Old vs the New Testament, & if I understood him correctly, he talks of the the laws of the Torah as the limits put on what could be exacted for breaking the law, otherwise mankind could place no limits (Think what that would lead to). He also made an interesting point: Christ’s aim is to bring us back to “The Garden” - a state of innocence. The Bible in the Book of Genesis opens in the Garden with mankind & a Tree of Life, & in Revelation it ends up with a Garden & a Tree of Life…

It’s an interesting idea…

 

[ATraveller]

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?

Allusions to it have been made but let’s be more explicit, concise and straight to the point:
The same God because Jesus, who is Divine and human in nature, fulfills the Old Covenant. Calvary covered all sacrifices and penalties with respect to sins. This is substitutionary atonement, a key doctrine in Christianity.
God is just, hence the tough and harsh punishments in the OT but is also merciful as seen in the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

 

[simpleas]

Exactly…

Being in a position or not, to accept or not doesn’t mean one should be taught to kill another person for a sin.
So what your saying is God could only teach people to kill each other over certain sins at that time.

Really? OK, then – Move forward in time from Moses’ day, about 3000 years. Up through the age of feudalism in the West, how good was our “mature, educated culture” back then at respecting human life? How good was it at setting humane, non-capital punishments? And you’re suggesting that they were better, 3000 years before that?

But God had taught that people should be put to death from the time of Moses, even when Jesus had folllowers they still murdered people, that is why I don’t fully believe God taught people to kill each other over sin, land or whatever humans deem belongs to them.

God could have. He chose to accept them where they were.

But he wasn’t accepting people were they were in their sin, he was commanding they be killed for a number of sins.

Strange thought, Jesus was killed by the same minds that were taught to kill blasphemers.

Yea that was part of the reason.

 

[simpleas]

It’s not the same for the Jewish teachings, from the little I know. They don’t ‘have’ Jesus, they do not follow a Christian way of thinking or teaching, so what changed for them to no longer up hold those punishments in their societies?
Government intervention? Not God.

(not saying Jewish people are not loving forgiving people btw)

 

[simpleas]

It is impossible to fully understand the meaning of the Written Law without using the Oral Law as a lens of clarification.

I have no chance of understanding it easily then!

 

[Gorgias]

Being in a position or not, to accept or not doesn’t mean one should be taught to kill another person for a sin.

So, your take is “no capital punishment.” Which means, to be fair, you oppose its use in secular jurisprudence as well, right?

So what your saying is God could only teach people to kill each other over certain sins at that time.

No – what I’m saying is that God (presumably) knew that the people wouldn’t be able to follow a more humane standard – that is, a standard that, some 3k-4k years later, we still find difficult to follow!

But God had taught that people should be put to death from the time of Moses, even when Jesus had folllowers they still murdered people, that is why I don’t fully believe God taught people to kill each other over sin, land or whatever humans deem belongs to them.

Not seeing the connection. You don’t believe in what the Mosaic law says, due to the fact that you know that they accepted capital punishment through those centuries? That doesn’t make sense. That’s like saying, “I know that there’s no such thing as ‘chocolate ice cream’, since people for centuries have loved vanilla ice cream”… right?

But he wasn’t accepting people were they were in their sin, he was commanding they be killed for a number of sins.

Sin always has consequences, doesn’t it? God doesn’t accept our sinfulness – but, He does work with us, where we are!

 

[simpleas]

So, your take is “no capital punishment.” Which means, to be fair, you oppose its use in secular jurisprudence as well, right?

I think it was Jesus’ take too, I don’t recall him calling anyone to be put to death for any sin?

Not seeing the connection. You don’t believe in what the Mosaic law says, due to the fact that you know that they accepted capital punishment through those centuries? That doesn’t make sense.

I don’t believe it was necessarily from God, I know it was there and used, but I also know people are very controlling of their lives and the lives of others who don’t comply with rules etc.
I meant Jesus’ own followers still were of the mind to kill others in the name of God.

Sin always has consequences, doesn’t it? God doesn’t accept our sinfulness – but, He does work with us, where we are!

We believe God works with us where we are now, he doesn’t ask that we be put to death, not at all like Lev.
But Meltzerboy2 said this :

It is impossible to fully understand the meaning of the Written Law without using the Oral Law as a lens of clarification.

 

[Telstar]

It’s not the same for the Jewish teachings, from the little I know. They don’t ‘have’ Jesus, they do not follow a Christian way of thinking or teaching, so what changed for them to no longer up hold those punishments in their societies?
Government intervention? Not God.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by, “it’s not the same for the Jewish teachings”. We are discussing Jewish teachings from the Old Testament, aren’t we? The Law of Moses has always been Jewish teaching. Those are the Laws listed in Leviticus, aren’t they? Jesus followed the Law of Moses because Jesus was Jewish. So, why would you think I wasn’t referring to the Jewish Law regarding the people who were alive in the time of Moses? I guess I’m probably just confused and don’t really know what you were looking for as an answer.

 

[simpleas]

I meant that as some Jewish people started to follow Jesus and became Christian, some did not and are still practising Jewish laws, but not the sever punishments in Lev. When did this change?

You may not know the answer, I was pondering on what was the Jewish teaching if not from God/Jesus that helped them to no longer use all the Lev punishments. Maybe the Romans had something to do with it.

 

[Kris34]

As for capital punishment when the temple was destroyed they lost their ability to do those things. The people scattered to other courses where you could not do those things. Scholars decided centuries ago it was better for a thousand not to be punished than one innocent person be guilty. So made the conditions of convictions harder to follow through with. A lot of Jewish law is based on the Talmud which came after the Torah and e catholic know little about it.

 

[Sedona]

Thank you for the reply Kainosktisis: With regard to the first point, it’s certainly feasible, but it remains one of those conclusions that Jesus seems to have left to later people to sort out rather than being explicit on any common level of communication, and he further obscures the matter by saying that He didn’t come to change any of the laws. As for a transformation in the fundamental status of humankind by blood sacrifice, that is truly a possibility, however, it leads down another path of discussion, and in the end it doesn’t offer any finality to the issue, at least for me. In fact, it calls me to imagine that if I were the master if the universe and could bring about any outcome I felt was needed, would I need a bloody and brutal sacrifice to be able to bring myself to terms over a transgression in a garden, or would I be able to get it sorted out in some compassionate way, thereby achieving reunification (assuming that’s what I really wanted in the first place) while at the same time teaching my subjects a heavenly and good approach to problem solving rather than a primitive and brutal one. It seems clearly within the range of choices available to an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being. After all, as the one who sets the conditions, why do I need to make an offering to myself or to anyone for that matter in order to set things on the right track ? It’s a painfully honest question that I ask, and I sincerely would welcome some sort of closure on it, and I suspect a good many people deep down feel the same. The question is not to be taken in a confrontational vein. It would only be asked by someone who cares enough to be brave enough to ask. So here I am.

Later in your reply you mention setting limits as to what humans could apply as punishments, but I have to ask how sensible a limit killing people is. This also also draws a connection to where that built-in human capacity for cruelty comes from. It suggests that it’s a dimension of reality that humans created rather than having extracted it from a range of potentials from which humans could choose. What mind would offer such options without a capacity for innate cruelty in it’s own nature? Even such thinkers as Blake have been unable to reconcile it with logic.

Thank you again for your kind reply and have a great evening.