Punishments in Leviticus 20

[Gorgias]

You mean you’ve never thought that humans have been discovering/growing in their knowledge of who/what God is?

That’s different than what I took from what you wrote. If you “can’t put the two [notions of God – OT & NT] together”, then that means that you aren’t seeing that it’s the people who changed, rather than God being ‘different’.

After all, I’m betting all of us have different ideas about the world, from the time we were children to now. Generally, that means that we have changed, and our perspectives and understandings have changed.

The mum/ infant question is silly, we are talking about our connection to the Divine and how teachings about the supernatural impact us all as humans.

We’re talking about different understandings of God, comparing the understanding of God thousands of years ago and now. Yes, the “mum/infant” question is relevant – don’t you think that the people of God, back in the days of Abraham and Moses, were less spiritually in touch with who God is? And therefore, they had a less mature understanding of HIm? And therefore, their perspective on Him in the Bible changes from OT to NT? Child. Parent.

 

[simpleas]

That’s different than what I took from what you wrote. If you “can’t put the two [notions of God – OT & NT] together”, then that means that you aren’t seeing that it’s the people who changed, rather than God being ‘different’.

Yes I can see that people have changed their notion of who God is, how we in the present believe who/what God is and how we can communicate with God.
It’s the literal interpretation of what God commanded be done with others that doesn’t seem quite right, and so we might believe better now through Jesus what we should do to those who sin against us. So God now is the same God of then, but our understanding of God is changed.

We’re talking about different understandings of God, comparing the understanding of God thousands of years ago and now. Yes, the “mum/infant” question is relevant – don’t you think that the people of God, back in the days of Abraham and Moses, were less spiritually in touch with who God is? And therefore, they had a less mature understanding of HIm? And therefore, their perspective on Him in the Bible changes from OT to NT? Child . Parent .

Yes hence why taking a literal understanding of God commanding the death of someone found guilty doesn’t ring true.

 

[Sedona]

And so doesn’t that thought suggest that the people wrote the rules in Gods name because that is what they thought God would want for his people?
Some people also wrote of the love and mercy of God too, so there are two sides to God, almost like there is two side to us, good and bad.

Yes, I think so. The problem is that it creates archetypes that aren’t especially useful, in that they block and discourage the direct experience of personal encounter by use of mandate, dogma and theology. I’m inclined to think that it’s an unhelpful intrusion into the psyche of people who would otherwise be immersed in the business of growing and creating their own direct relationship with the source of their being by laying down mental frameworks that people are unable and fearful to extricate themselves from. People have a demonstrated proclivity for following religious and social axioms to the point of their own destruction.

I have reasoned to the point of personal conviction that the only point in conscious sentient existence is the felt presence of direct experience, and while religious texts can provide rough guideposts, they are no substitute for active participation and engagement with the world both around and within. It is my belief (and nothing more than my own belief) that the final frontier is not outer space but inner space, which is home to the very the agent of creation that seeks to reach out, grow, evolve and to create incursions into dimensionality that in turn make creative experience possible. To know It’s nature is to know where It needs to go for fulfillment. I hope that makes some sense to you without necessarily requiring any agreement to the veracity of the idea. I would appreciate your thoughts, as I am only learning as I live.

Thanks again for the replies.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes hence why taking a literal understanding of God commanding the death of someone found guilty doesn’t ring true.

You’ve never heard of a parent threatening to ground their child forever?

 

[Cathoholic]

simpleas . . .

Reading of a God that instructs his children to put each other to death for some small action (seems small to us now, but may have been very important to the people of that day) to reading of a God that instructs his children to love one another, the stranger, the outsider to the community, changes God in a way.

Emphasis mine.

No it does not “change God”.

But ever since Jesus came to save the world there are now graces that we have that men in the Old Covenant did NOT have.

MEN have changed via GRACE.

CCC 1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

 

[kainosktisis]

It comes down to Christ fulfilling the requirements of the Law (The Old Covenant) out of love for us.

His act of love reconciled us to God in the New Covenant.

From Colossians 2 NABRE (USCCB):

Colossians, CHAPTER 2 | USCCB

Sovereign Role of Christ.
9
For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily,
10
and you share in this fullness in him, who is the head of every principality and power.
11
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.
12
You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13
And even when you were dead [in] transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions;
14
obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross;
15
despoiling the principalities and the powers, he made a public spectacle of them, leading them away in triumph by it.

The commentaries following the text appear below:

• [2:11] A description of baptism (Col 2:12) in symbolic terms of the Old Testament rite for entry into the community. The false teachers may have demanded physical circumcision of the Colossians.
• [2:14] The elaborate metaphor here about how God canceled the legal claims against us through Christ’s cross depicts not Christ being nailed to the cross by men but the bond…with its legal claims being nailed to the cross by God.
• [2:15] The picture derives from the public spectacle and triumph of a Roman emperor’s victory parade, where captives marched in subjection. The principalities and the powers are here conquered, not reconciled (cf. Col 1:16, 20). An alternate rendering for by it (the cross) is “by him” (Christ).

By our ancestors’ sin, we bound ourselves to death, but Christ’s act of love crossed us over from death to life.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, I think so. The problem is that it creates archetypes that aren’t especially useful, in that they block and discourage the direct experience of personal encounter by use of mandate, dogma and theology. I’m inclined to think that it’s an unhelpful intrusion into the psyche of people who would otherwise be immersed in the business of growing and creating their own direct relationship with the source of their being by laying down mental frameworks that people are unable and fearful to extricate themselves from. People have a demonstrated proclivity for following religious and social axioms to the point of their own destruction.

I do understand what you are saying.

It’s some coincidence that the below is a part of an email meditation I receive daily as it touches on what we are discussing.

During Jesus’ time, religious law was being interpreted almost exclusively through the Book of Leviticus, particularly chapters 17-24, the Law of Holiness. Jesus critiques his own tradition. He refuses to interpret the Mosaic law in terms of inclusion/exclusion, the symbolic self-identification of Judaism as the righteous, pure, elite group. Jesus continually interprets the Law of Holiness in terms of the God whom he has met—and that God is always compassion and mercy.

Jesus even broke some of the rules along the way, he did not follow all the 600 or so laws. ( And I believe no human is capable of follow all the rules in the OT)

I have reasoned to the point of personal conviction that the only point in conscious sentient existence is the felt presence of direct experience, and while religious texts can provide rough guideposts, they are no substitute for active participation and engagement with the world both around and within. It is my belief (and nothing more than my own belief) that the final frontier is not outer space but inner space, which is home to the very the agent of creation that seeks to reach out, grow, evolve and to create incursions into dimensionality that in turn make creative experience possible. To know It’s nature is to know where It needs to go for fulfillment. I hope that makes some sense to you without necessarily requiring any agreement to the veracity of the idea. I would appreciate your thoughts, as I am only learning as I live.

I do believe in a personal experience, but this has to be searched for I think, though the creator can chose to connect with anyone at anytime.

Thanks again for the replies.

Thank you too for sharing your thoughts

 

[simpleas]

Only those parents that are disturbed in some way. Most parents I know allow their children to eventually make their own mistakes.

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for that, but my question was aimed at @meltzerboy2 and his Jewish knowledge.

 

[meltzerboy2]

If I understand correctly, you want to know why such harsh punishment was written into the Law in the first place? I would suppose one of the reasons (but this is only my own reasoning based on my understanding of the Hebrew Bible) is that it serves as a deterrent so that the Jewish people do not imitate the ways of the Pagan cultures. 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. Think of a parent who admonishes their child with such a harsh punishment that the child does not even think of acting in a way that would get them in trouble.

 

[ATraveller]

Jesus even broke some of the rules along the way, he did not follow all the 600 or so laws. ( And I believe no human is capable of follow all the rules in the OT)

Jesus didn’t break any rules. He modified ceremonial laws but not moral ones. For example, the Sabbath:

Did Jesus alter the commandment about observing the sabbath? | Catholic Answers Q&A

Jesus and the Sabbath Sacred Scripture

“Although Deut 23:25 permits the Israelites to pluck and eat standing grain, the Pharisees indict the disciples under the law of Ex 34:21, which forbids harvesting on the Sabbath (Ex 20:8-11; CCC 2168-73). Resolved to discredit him, the Pharisees equate plucking grain with harvesting it.” “According to Jesus, God designed the Sabbath to benefit his people, not to burden them (CCC 2172-73).” Ignatius Catholic Study Bible So the Pharisees, who did not recoginise who Jesus is, tried to trap him…

 

[Gorgias]

Only those parents that are disturbed in some way.

Right. 'Cause attempting to get children to recognize boundaries is ‘disturbed’. Got it.

Most parents I know allow their children to eventually make their own mistakes.

Eventually, yes. But not prior to the point where they can be expected to make good judgments in general.

 

[Vico]

…
I also don’t understand then why Leviticus is quoted so much in regard to same sex acts yet never is really quoted for other sins, it’s like that’s the only quote from God in the entire book.
…

There are many rules that the Jews followed and sexual law is written in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

See also Genesis 19:

4 Before they went to bed, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—all the people to the last man—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.” 6 Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, 7 he said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing! 8 I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But do not do anything to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

 

[simpleas]

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.

Thanks.

So the ‘rules’ still apply.
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.

If you don’t mind answering how that came to be? Why are the Divine Laws for punishments not still in place for said sinners? Where did the Divine revoke these laws in scripture?

Thanks again.

 

[Gorgias]

Where did the Divine revoke these laws in scripture?

Not revoke… fulfill. Jesus mentions it explicitly:
Mt 5:17:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

 

[simpleas]

Right. 'Cause attempting to get children to recognize boundaries is ‘disturbed’. Got it.

Sorry, I read your question as parents who would ground their child forever…

Eventually, yes. But not prior to the point where they can be expected to make good judgments in general.

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.

 

[Gorgias]

Yeah, but I can’t think of the people of the OT being so immature.

Not spiritually immature?

They literally saw that God freed them from slavery in Egypt, and then (with their own eyes) they saw Him destroy the Egyptian army that came after them. They saw him lead them through the desert with with visible signs (pillar of smoke, pillar of fire). And then, when Moses was gone 40 days… they created the figure of a cow from gold and cried out “this! this golden calf is what saved us!”

Umm… yeah. “Spiritually immature” sounds about right.

Leviticus Laws seem to be all aimed at adults, though they are Gods children, they had freewill, able to make choices etc.

Are you making the claim that, by virtue of being an adult, a person is mature?

 

[simpleas]

You are speaking as a Christian.

But I am asking the question to posters that are Jewish, they still await the Messiah, they do not believe Jesus was their saviour and so they still practise the old covenant.

 

[Gorgias]

But I am asking the question to posters that are Jewish

You are? 'Cause, in your OP, you discussed the teachings of Jesus wrt this question…

 

[simpleas]

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