Was all of the Sinai Covenant/Old Law actually divine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bezant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bezant

Guest
…if God forbade something as trivial as shatnez (mixed clothing of wool and linen) and cooking a calf in its mother’s milk? Or are are these cultural prohibitions?

This is a big question. Your responses are appreciated.
 
…if God forbade something as trivial as shatnez (mixed clothing of wool and linen) and cooking a calf in its mother’s milk? Or are are these cultural prohibitions?

This is a big question. Your responses are appreciated.
…there are things that seem trivial to us… remember the prescription of the Priests… they were to were a very specific garment that would cover them as they went up the ladder/steps so that their nakedness would not be seen by God… huh? 🤷

…the Creator, the one that fashioned us from dirt, gave us a body, and is able to see right into our most inner being… He is fuzzy about a little skin and some male things hanging…?

…and what about Moses removing his sandals because the ground where he would step was Holy?

…I am not sure… but could that issue of the mixed materials not be due to the fact that Yahweh’s people were not to mix in with others who worshiped foreign gods? …we may not be able to imagine it today, but could you see Christ’s followers freeing ourselves from those aspects of society that are detremental to our temporal and spiritual wellbeing? …a simple thing as not wearing styles that promote all sorts of sensual/sexual passions, our bodies free of piercings, tatoos, and artificial enhancements, no tabacco consumption, self-control (food, wealth, alcohol, drugs, sex, etc.)… it may all seem quite trivial… but what impact we would have both on the various financial markets as well as the social norms that constantly pressure people to accept their laxed modals amd morality!

…the one about the milk… other than mercy (animal lovers would call it insignificant but I can see it)… having respect for the animal whose offspring you are about to cook and eat… this is where Father Mitch Pacua or our various Jewish brothers could chime in to offer cultural background…

Maran atha!

Angel
 
…if God forbade something as trivial as shatnez (mixed clothing of wool and linen) and cooking a calf in its mother’s milk? Or are are these cultural prohibitions?

This is a big question. Your responses are appreciated.
It is a big question and, as usual in Judaism, there are diverse interpretations. With regard to shatnez, the best interpretation I’ve read about is based on the book of Genesis and the story of Cain and Abel, in which Cain brought G-d a gift of linen (flax), while Abel brought G-d a gift of wool in the form of sheep. Cain was upset by Abel’s gift and later murdered him. In the Midrash, which is part of the Oral Law (Talmud) necessary to interpret the Written Law (Torah), it is said that this incident shows the importance of people’s respecting each other’s diversity, which Cain was unable to do regarding his brother. By mixing these fabrics, it shows a lack of respect for each person’s individuality and uniqueness. There are other interpretations as well, including the idea that material fabrics represent the spiritual fabric of the Universe and if the former are mixed, they may cause harm to the latter. Finally, there is the idea in Judaism that certain laws were INTENTIONALLY given by G-d without any apparent reason, for the purpose of distinguishing them from those laws that make good sense. This distinction is thought necessary because if every law is commonly shared by humanity and written on the hearts of mankind, one may follow it without necessarily believing in G-d, simply by virtue of being a rational humanist and a good person. However, laws which are given for no apparent reason differentiate those people who believe and trust in G-d and obey His laws despite not understanding their meaning. To the rationalist, this might appear to be nothing but blind obedience without the use of intelligent thinking–which, in general, is not encouraged in Judaism–but in this case, for the believer, it is a sign of one’s love and faith in G-d.

With regard to the prohibition against the mixing of meat and milk, this commandment appears three times in the Torah (twice in Exodus and once in Deuteronomy). As in the case of shatnez, there may be various reasons given by the Oral Law; unfortunately, I’m not familiar with them. I do think, however, that the cultural differences concerning the time period one must wait after eating meat products and then those made with milk CANNOT be divinely inspired. Nonetheless, Orthodox Jews believe in the divine inspiration of BOTH the Written Law and the Oral Law, while Conservative Jews are not as strict about the Oral Law interpretations (that is, they offer differing interpretations), and many Reform Jews go so far as to doubt the divine inspiration of either, preferring to view Judaism as more of an evolving religion than one which is basically a done deal. In principle, this latter view (as well as the one held by Conservative Judaism) are labeled heresies from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism. That does not mean, however, that Torah Jews do not accept and love their heretical brothers as fellow Jews; some of the former believe these uninformed souls will ultimately be “converted” either in the present life or the afterlife.
 
The law is divine.

*The LORD called Moses, and from the meeting tent gave him this message: "Speak to the Israelites and tell them:… (Leviticus 1:1-2)

**The LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites: **(Leviticus 4:1-2)

**The LORD said to Moses, **(Leviticus 5:14)

The LORD said to Moses, (Leviticus 5:20)

The LORD said to Moses, (Leviticus 6:1)

The LORD said to Moses, (Leviticus 6:12)

The LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron and his sons: (Leviticus 6:17)

The LORD said to Moses, (Leviticus 7:22)

The LORD said to Moses, (Leviticus 7:28)

The LORD said to Aaron, (Leviticus 10:8)*

And on and on and on…

Either the Lord said it and the law is divine, or Moses has some explaining to do.

-Tim-
 
A few other things about shatnez, which I had forgotten to mention in my previous post. One interesting point is that holy garments worn by Jews DO contain a combination of wool and linen. Perhaps the fact they are regarded as holy justifies this; but then why were they made that way to begin with? Also, trying on shatnez is permitted if the garment will not be bought and worn, although this may also be cultural since I’ve heard Sephardim allow it, whereas some Ashkenazi Jews do not. Further, the manufacture and sale of shatnez is not allowed unless it is sold only to non-Jews. And finally, as in the instance of kosher food, a single strand of shatnez renders the whole garment “non-kosher.”
 
My reading of Jewish commentaries is that expressed by meltzerboy. We obey God’s laws not because they make sense. If we impose a requirement that the laws we obey make sense, then it is not God’s laws. That sounds kind of odd, doesn’t it? but, it makes sense to a believer, to do what God commands.

Jesus said that if we loved Him, that we should obey His commandments. Love may have some element of emotional involvement, but obedience is the proof of love. Love is a decision, and it is demonstrated in action.
 
A few other things about shatnez, which I had forgotten to mention in my previous post. One interesting point is that holy garments worn by Jews DO contain a combination of wool and linen. Perhaps the fact they are regarded as holy justifies this; but then why were they made that way to begin with? Also, trying on shatnez is permitted if the garment will not be bought and worn, although this may also be cultural since I’ve heard Sephardim allow it, whereas some Ashkenazi Jews do not. Further, the manufacture and sale of shatnez is not allowed unless it is sold only to non-Jews. And finally, as in the instance of kosher food, a single strand of shatnez renders the whole garment “non-kosher.”
…could it be related to the oil made specifically for Temple worship–the exact duplication for common use was forbiden!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
…could it be related to the oil made specifically for Temple worship–the exact duplication for common use was forbiden!

Maran atha!

Angel
I had never heard this interpretation before, but it sounds interesting by virtue of separating the holy from the mundane, just as the Sabbath is set apart from the work week. However, Judaism is full of inexplicable conundrums, at least to me, in that there is also the view–largely Hasidic and Kabbalistic–that mundane objects and activities are to be perceived as elements which reflect holiness.
 
My reading of Jewish commentaries is that expressed by meltzerboy. We obey God’s laws not because they make sense. If we impose a requirement that the laws we obey make sense, then it is not God’s laws. That sounds kind of odd, doesn’t it? but, it makes sense to a believer, to do what God commands.

Jesus said that if we loved Him, that we should obey His commandments. Love may have some element of emotional involvement, but obedience is the proof of love. Love is a decision, and it is demonstrated in action.
Exactly. And not only to do what G-d commands without questioning, but to recognize that G-d’s complete essence and exalted ways are unfathomable to our intellect and reason. Yet, at the same time, we are encouraged to use our reason in trying to understand G-d’s teachings and laws by studying and interpreting His Word as expressed in Scripture.
 
It is a big question and, as usual in Judaism, there are diverse interpretations. With regard to shatnez, the best interpretation I’ve read about is based on the book of Genesis and the story of Cain and Abel, in which Cain brought G-d a gift of linen (flax), while Abel brought G-d a gift of wool in the form of sheep. Cain was upset by Abel’s gift and later murdered him. In the Midrash, which is part of the Oral Law (Talmud) necessary to interpret the Written Law (Torah), it is said that this incident shows the importance of people’s respecting each other’s diversity, which Cain was unable to do regarding his brother. By mixing these fabrics, it shows a lack of respect for each person’s individuality and uniqueness. There are other interpretations as well, including the idea that material fabrics represent the spiritual fabric of the Universe and if the former are mixed, they may cause harm to the latter. Finally, there is the idea in Judaism that certain laws were INTENTIONALLY given by G-d without any apparent reason, for the purpose of distinguishing them from those laws that make good sense. This distinction is thought necessary because if every law is commonly shared by humanity and written on the hearts of mankind, one may follow it without necessarily believing in G-d, simply by virtue of being a rational humanist and a good person. However, laws which are given for no apparent reason differentiate those people who believe and trust in G-d and obey His laws despite not understanding their meaning. To the rationalist, this might appear to be nothing but blind obedience without the use of intelligent thinking–which, in general, is not encouraged in Judaism–but in this case, for the believer, it is a sign of one’s love and faith in G-d.

With regard to the prohibition against the mixing of meat and milk, this commandment appears three times in the Torah (twice in Exodus and once in Deuteronomy). As in the case of shatnez, there may be various reasons given by the Oral Law; unfortunately, I’m not familiar with them. I do think, however, that the cultural differences concerning the time period one must wait after eating meat products and then those made with milk CANNOT be divinely inspired. Nonetheless, Orthodox Jews believe in the divine inspiration of BOTH the Written Law and the Oral Law, while Conservative Jews are not as strict about the Oral Law interpretations (that is, they offer differing interpretations), and many Reform Jews go so far as to doubt the divine inspiration of either, preferring to view Judaism as more of an evolving religion than one which is basically a done deal. In principle, this latter view (as well as the one held by Conservative Judaism) are labeled heresies from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism. That does not mean, however, that Torah Jews do not accept and love their heretical brothers as fellow Jews; some of the former believe these uninformed souls will ultimately be “converted” either in the present life or the afterlife.
Thank you! That is very helpful
I never heard that before about wool & flax being about Cain & Abel, but it does make sense to me now:thumbsup:.
 
I had never heard this interpretation before, but it sounds interesting by virtue of separating the holy from the mundane, just as the Sabbath is set apart from the work week. However, Judaism is full of inexplicable conundrums, at least to me, in that there is also the view–largely Hasidic and Kabbalistic–that mundane objects and activities are to be perceived as elements which reflect holiness.
…and that is similar to St. Paul’s Teaching: wether we live or die we do it for Christ–the whole prmise is to Glorify God with our being in everything we do.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Like Tim said, the Law is Divine. I know forbidding mixed linen sounds silly, but marching around Jericho for days must have sounded even sillier at the time.
 
I had never heard this interpretation before, but it sounds interesting by virtue of separating the holy from the mundane, just as the Sabbath is set apart from the work week. However, Judaism is full of inexplicable conundrums, at least to me, in that there is also the view–largely Hasidic and Kabbalistic–that mundane objects and activities are to be perceived as elements which reflect holiness.
…I rechecked; I used the term oil (personal bias since I use oil-base incense) but the actual term is incense:

34 And the Lord said to Moses: Take unto thee spices, stacte, and onycha, galbanum of sweet savour, and the clearest frankincense, all shall be of equal weight. 35 And thou shalt make incense compounded by the work of the perfumer, well tempered together, and pure, and most worthy of sanctification. 36 And when thou hast beaten all into very small powder, thou shalt set of it before the tabernacle of the testimony, in the place where I will appear to thee. Most holy shall this incense be unto you. 37 You shall not make such a composition for your own uses, because it is holy to the Lord. (Exodus 30:34-37–DRV)

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Like Tim said, the Law is Divine. I know forbidding mixed linen sounds silly, but marching around Jericho for days must have sounded even sillier at the time.
…correct! …and as with the manna (collect only what is necessary for the day… while two measures would keep only for the Sabbath!), there’s always a Divine Reason even tiniest of Commands.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top