The Hidden Assumption
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, Deuteronomy 21:10 ESV
When you go out – This verse begins the weekly Torah portion known as Ki Tetze – literally “When you go out.” Out of all of the 613 commandments in the Torah (as defined by rabbinic Judaism), 72 are found in this Torah portion alone (from Deuteronomy 21:10 to 25:19). Most people who are reading it for the first time (or who have never been instructed in the Torah) would look at it and ask, “What on earth is all this about and what does it have to do with me today?”
The commandment that is known as “the least commandment” is also found in this portion amongst the 72, in Deuteronomy 22:6-7. This is the one of which Yeshua said, “If anyone breaks even the least of these commandments, and teaches men to do so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”
The thing is that many of the commandments found in this portion have one common, overarching theme to them. Go and read through this portion and see if you can identify it. You won’t find the word used anywhere, but see if you can figure it out. It’s OK. I’ll wait. …. Back already? Did you see it? Many, if not most, of the commandments in this portion have to do with kindness. Kindness to others in the community, kindness to animals and birds, kindness to your enemies, even kindness to God. The prohibition against Amon and Moab from joining the assembly of YHVH is also found in this portion, in Deuteronomy 23:3-4. Why? Because they failed to treat Israel with kindness.
This is why Yeshua stressed that even the least commandment in the Torah is important and not optional. It is about kindness. Bringing the rule and reign of God to the world wherever we are is an act of kindness. Showing God’s love to those around us, providing for the needs of others from the resources that God has entrusted to us is an act of kindness. Not putting others at risk is an act of kindness. Treating your enemies with respect and dignity, even in battle, is an act of kindness. What’s more, the kindness described in these commandments would have been the antithesis of what Israel had experienced (and even learned to act like) in Egypt. This is God saying, “Remember how it felt. My people will be different. You won’t treat people the way you were treated in Egypt.”
Now think back to James. What was it that James said? “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27). I think James may well have understood this Torah portion.
Topical Index: kindness, James 1:27, Deuteronomy 21:10, Deuteronomy 23:3-4, Ki Tetze
Rodney Baker, Adelaide
~ When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive.. (Deuteronomy 21:10)
~ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.. ~ (Matthew 5.44)
~ And be sweet (chréstos) one toward another and affectionate, and be forgiving one another, just as God in The Messiah has forgiven us ~ (Ephesians 4.32)
Yes, “kindness,” – not only kindness, but “loving-kindness!” A word that is now foreign and forgotten. It’s been a long time since I heard this word where I work..- or for that matter even in the home. I first heard this word in the church- and in the story, the display, the witness of “friendship” between David, (the not yet king) and Jonathan- (the rightful heir to the throne).
This is one story in God’s Book (there are so many!) we do not want to miss. This is another promise, another blessing, but this one is “The Big One”- this one is the one story (other than Ruth!) that “tells all.”
This is the story of “friendship.” David and Jonathan were not “acquaintances,” – they were friends, in the true sense of the word “friend.” David and Jonathan made a covenant together, the blood-covenant of friendship. ~ There is a friend that sticks closer than a brother ~ and this “friend” is a blood-covenant friend.
Whatever is mine is yours and whatever is yours is mine. All of it. Your enemies are my enemies and my enemies are your enemies- all of them. I surrender to you, my Friend, all that I have, all that I am, and all that I will be. You will have my time, my treasure, my testimony, my teeth, my thoughts and my tongue.. (is there more?)- if so, you, my Friend, may have this also. I surrender ALL.
Andrew Murray has “titled” this- “Absolute Surrender”. What did David give to Jonathan, his friend? Everything. What did Jonathan (sacrificially) give to David? Everything. Do you “see it” now? But wait!!- There’s more.. (so much more!) For this neverending story continues..- even until “this day..” (tHis Love endures forever!!)
Is there anyone left of the house of Jonathan that I may show him “kindness” (loving-kindness) for Jonathan’s sake? – Because of the blood-covenant of friendship, David and Jonathan made with each other. This blood-covenant friendship is a deeper brotherhood than a “milk-brother”- those who are weaned from the same breast!
Now, let us “fast-forward” to these words: ~ “This is the new covenant in my blood, drink all of it” ~ We who belong to ADONAI are in a “blood-covenant” relationship of “friendship” with The LORD of the Universes. Do we the sheeple even have a clue of what we have or are “in Christ?” I am convinced- we do not, for all we like (wandering, distracted) sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity (twistedness) of us all. We do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. We have a driver’s license, but treat it as though it were a learner’s permit. We do not know or else we have forgotten, who we are “in Christ.”
~ What do the scriptures say? ~ What is our corporate answer? I don’t know and I don’t care. Yes, ignorance and apathy. Ignorant, apathetic, clueless sheep. Good morning America,- how are you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCZrPqnNtY&feature=related
I get the kindness bit but…Due 22:5 I can see cross dressing as a no, no but my father who is now deceased had some sweaters, quilted work shirts, fleece pants and insulated ski underwear that are warm (he was 98 when he died and got cold a lot) and I wear them for that purpose. And then I rarely wear skirts or dresses but dress in slacks, ladies of course guys pants don’t fit they are cut wrong. So what’s wrong with that? Nothing I can see or am likely to change.
Then there is Due 22:9, :11, 12, why? Some parts of the translation need translating, like Due 22:18. In :17 there is, in the context, a harlot and a sodomite, then in :18 there is the hire of a harlot and the price of a dog. ??? A literal dog? or is a sodomite being equated to a dog, my guess but an obtuse simile. There are others that seem odd or inconsistent. 22:19, 29 The poor girl shackled to what is likely to be an abusive man, and this is supposed to be a good thing? 22:30 the second part?
24:1-4 It’s OK to divorce a woman who is then free to remarry, but if she is divorced again or widowed he can’t remarry her??? That is at best illogical and inconsistent. And 24:6 is simply unfathomable. Then there is 24:10-13. I think it must a cultural thing but is it talking about clothing? They are using clothing for what? Collateral on a loan or other obligation? I don’t get it. And why can’t the one go into the home of the other? I just don’t see the significance of 25:9-10, or for that matter :11.
But the big picture is, that we are to be kind. No problem there though I still sometimes grieve for having gotten smart so late in life. God may have forgiven me for past mindless, selfish, clueless failures. I have a harder time doing so.
But are we meant to still fussbudget over tassels and other minutiae. And some of that stuff is so culture specific as to be out of sight. No one is going to stone to death anyone else, or give someone a beating with a lash or cut off a hand etc, etc. I’m afraid I am very Protestant on this stuff being done away with.
Are we to be ‘fussbudget’ over anything?
The verses you mention from Deuteronomy do have some physical explanations – and there is wisdom in not trying to plow a donkey and an ox together (in case you’ve never tried) — however, there is a much more apparent object lesson warning against putting two incompatible people together to get a job done.
I’m convinced some of these laws were placed there to draw attention. They don’t make sense on the surface, but in struggling to be obedient we find the applications in numerous other situations.
Afternoon Gabe, You mention one of the verses that makes sense, I was not querying that one specifically, but the ones bracketing it give me pause. For instance in 22:9 is it talking about viniculture only, i.e. cross pollination, does anyone even culture grapes by seed? Or does it mean any seeds. When I was a girl living in apple growing country the orchardists raised a second cash crop in the same fields. Asparagus would come in much earlier than the apples and have gone dormant by the time the apples were ready to harvest. What’s wrong with that?
And 22:11 There may be practical reasons, or applications for that but I can’t think of any, if fact that application of the opposite makes great sense. Combining the strengths of different materials (people etc) to product a superior out come. A concept used extensively in the garment industry. Just saying, some of these laws just seem like nit picking for the sake of nit picking.
I’m thankful for this forum where we can grapple with these concepts together….
….. with that said…. most people have no problem with many of the Torah laws that seem to ‘make sense’,.. so the real issue is about the “weird ones” (a minority of the total). Sick people needing to be quarantined isn’t so controversial, but something like say,…. Numbers 5.. which includes a seemingly bizarre ritual for a jealous husband to test his wife for adultery – we really want to separate OUR faith from that kind of voodoo.
Now, some would just argue that this jealous husband ‘procedure’ necessitates the existence of the temple or tabernacle, a priesthood, and an Israelite social contract – which don’t exist today. Hence, even most Torah observant groups wouldn’t pursue any modern application of this particular section. However, as I’ve heard – there is no record of anyone EVER actually going through this ritual. Yet, God led Moses to spend a large part of his book recording this ritual that was never, or almost never used. Hmmmm?
This leaves a couple of options. First, the whole procedure was meant to be a disincentive – it served a purpose, in that, people didn’t want to go through with it. Or,… it is an object lesson of sorts, possibly symbolic of something else and not meant to be widely applicable to jealous husbands. Considering that a woman is symbolic of the church — does this ritual make more sense? In the ritual, the adulteress woman becomes unfruitful. So also does adulteress church not produce the fruits of the spirit. There are parallels between the water of bitterness that the woman is made to drink, and the bitter waters that Moses made the people drink after their idolatry with the golden calf.
I am not arguing strongly for this exact interpretation – frankly, I am still very immature in my exploration of Torah, however, I have found enough to encourage me not to simply disregard these words. God did not waste his breath nit picking.
Gabe, Yes this forum is just that and i value it too.
I am not sure that this jealousy thing you mention was never or rarely done. You are looking at things from a male perspective and not seeing the other side of the equation. There is so much violence against women even in our so called enlightened age that even the laws against wife beating as wrong and spanking as an appropriate discipline for wives is less than a century old in this country.
I think this voodoo as you correctly characterize it was likely as wide spread and acceptable a practice in the day as sharia law is the surrounding region today. So much so that it was likely not even considered worthy of noting. Biblically endorsed practices such as Deu 21:11-14 are barbaric and show an accurate picture of the abusiveness of institutionalized sexism that predominates human history.
Sorry to be coming off as a feminist but the history of gender policy has a dirty nasty underbelly that is world wide, and thousands of years old. And frankly still predominates in most of this world and in this age. Winking at it and saying that it isn’t or wasn’t is just myopic.
Sorry, I seem to have a lot of hot buttons, and this most certainly is one of them.
“Biblically endorsed practices”? I think what you meant to say (and the words are important) is “practices that assert some biblical basis.” The Bible does not ENDORSE cruelty toward women (or anyone else). That is based on the character of God (see Exodus 34:6-7). So anyone who asserts that this passage in Deuteronomy gives them license to act with cruelty toward women clearly does not understand the text. Furthermore, I would argue that the text is CULTURALLY biased. It reveals something that was of concern in the time it was written. That does not mean it is applicable to all people at all times. By the way, Paul’s remarks about women wearing jewelry and plating their hair falls under precisely the same cultural orientation.
Antonea,
I’m male, I tend to look at things from a male perspective. I hope that doesn’t ruin everything I say. 😀
I also wasn’t trying to give an ‘opinion’ on how often the ritual was used. I’m saying that when I tried to look up information about it – several of the sources said that unlike many of the other laws, there is literally NO RECORD of this ritual having ever been used. No where I looked said that there were instances of this being used. The Rabbi’s tried to explain this absence in the record by saying that whenever a man and woman actually started heading the the temple to go through with it – the woman would just admit the affair, or the man would see that she was willing to go through with it and feel that she must be innocent… and they returned home.
I can’t speak to all of the sexism in the whole world, but this is what I found – a possible explanation for having a law that wasn’t really followed literally.
Do not overlook the fact that these Torah instructions were given to a particular people from a particular period with a particular cultural background. Instead of trying to “make sense” of the weird ones through OUR cultural eyes, why not ask what this would have meant according to the customs and practices of pagan religions and cultures at that time. Maybe then they wouldn’t sound so weird at all.
Yes, we can draw applications from these instructions, but clearly attributing any application to “the church” is far beyond the exegesis of the text.
For example, Bob Gorelik and I don’t share the same view of the instruction not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Rabbinic tradition uses this verse as the basis of the separation of dairy and meat, but I think it has something to do with a pagan practice at the time. Bob chooses to follow the rabbinic interpretation. I do not. But we both realize that the ORIGINAL meaning of the text is now lost in history.
Antoneea, thanks for your honesty and willingness to share. If I may offer some comments in response…
“Due 22:5 I can see cross dressing as a no, no but my father who is now deceased had some sweaters, quilted work shirts, fleece pants and insulated ski underwear that are warm (he was 98 when he died and got cold a lot) and I wear them for that purpose. And then I rarely wear skirts or dresses but dress in slacks, ladies of course guys pants don’t fit they are cut wrong. So what’s wrong with that? Nothing I can see or am likely to change. ”
I don’t think this falls into the category of “cross dressing” that is being addressed here. The principle is that a man should be clearly identifiable as a man, likewise a woman as a woman (whatever that happens to look like in the culture in which we live), in order to avoid embarrassing situations that could occur if one mistakes the gender of another person. The prohibition is about deliberately taking on the appearance of the opposite gender. Even here, the kindness principle is about avoiding causing embarrassment to your fellow man (or woman) that would be caused by such an error.
Deut 22:9 – certain crops are not suitable to be sown together. In an agricultural society where the welfare of the community depends on the success of the harvest, wasting an entire season’s harvest would jeopardise not only the welfare of the farmer, but of the entire village or community.
Deut 22:11 – linen and wool are incompatible threads, and there is some evidence that there are health effects that are not fully understood of mixing the two together (although some of the proposed explanations I’ve heard are pretty close to quackery). I know some people personally for whom this is the difference between healthy skin and outbreaks of eczema or other skin complaints.
Deut 22:12 – this is a reiteration of Num 15 where God gives not only the instruction but the reason for it:
Your reference to Deut 22:17-18 seems confused – perhaps you got the wrong reference there?
Deut 22:19-29 actually begins with 22:13. The KJV doesn’t make it easy – our usage of the English language has changed somewhat – but I think this is intended to cause men to think twice (or more) before taking a wife, to make sure that she is indeed one with whom they want to spend their life. Remember, these instructions were taught from childhood, so every man would have known full well about this instruction and the fact that there were not “easy outs” allowed – they could not simply have their way with a girl and then put her away, claiming she was not a virgin. This is about protecting the rights of women – again, kindness to women on the part of men.
The second part of Deut 22:30 is really saying the same as the first part – it is a euphemism. Compare with Lev 18:8:
[Note: this same phrase is used in Gen 9:22-23, which should give you a clue about the euphemistic meaning of that account.]
Ah, I see your reference now to Deut 23:18-19 – this is speaking of ill-gotten gains. Any “increase” from sinful activities (I’m not completely sure about the “price of a dog” reference) is not acceptable as an offering to God. This is specifically in reference to completing a vow or pledge, but the general principle is that offerings must come from your own domestic flock or increase (e.g. crops), be the fruit of your own (legitimate) labour and must cost you something (otherwise, they’re not a sacrifice). Something found, stolen, loaned or gifted to you by another do not qualify as acceptable offerings to God.
Deut 24:1-4 – yes, you read it correctly. It is neither illogical nor inconsistent – there is a deeper meaning to this which teaches us about the mystery of Messiah. Jeremiah 3 makes reference to this as does Paul in Romans 7.
Deut 24:6 – this is about taking collateral as a pledge to pay back a debt. If one takes a millstone as a pledge, the one making the pledge cannot grind his grain to make flour; therefore, he can neither earn income nor feed his family. This is protection against “loan sharks”. Again, kindness to one who owes you a debt.
Deut 24:10-11 – yes, again this is about collateral as a pledge to repay a debt. Not going into the house of the debtor to collect the “pledge” – the collateral (whatever it may be – usually a man’s cloak or coat) – is about trust, honour and the dignity of the debtor. Again, kindness to one who owes you a debt. vv12-13 are an extension of the same – having compassion on the one who owes the debt, especially if keeping the “pledge” would cause them undue hardship.
Re your reference to 25:9 – were you instead referring to 24:9? This is connected to 24:8 and refers to Numbers 12:1-15.
“But are we meant to still fussbudget over tassels and other minutiae.”
I don’t think God sees tassels as minutiae (check out the reference I gave you earlier from Num 15). They served a very specific purpose. Plus, they appear in a very important story in one of the Gospels (the woman with the issue of blood). I think Yeshua would have an issue with your characterization of any of the commandments as minutiae, too. To wit:
“No one is going to stone to death anyone else, or give someone a beating with a lash or cut off a hand etc, etc.”
No, you’re right, because we do not have the Priesthood (who also functioned as the judiciary), the temple nor any of the other prerequisites specified in the Torah to make these judgements and pronounce the prescribed punishments. Therefore, we live under the law of the land in which we dwell, and submit to the legal system (and specified punishments) there. Once Messiah returns to Jerusalem and reestablishes the Temple, the altar and the Priesthood, He will be the one teaching Torah and acting as judge.
In the mean time, we thank God for Yeshua and that He took the penalty for our breaches of the covenant. That does not give us the license to pick and choose what we do or don’t obey – to do so is to crucify Messiah over and over again. No – we live “as those who will be judged by the perfect law of liberty”, as James said. Liberty comes from living within the boundaries for acceptable behaviour within the community, as set down by the law. Bondage comes by breaking the law. Exactly the same principle applies in our secular legal system; liberty for those who are law abiding, bondage for the lawbreakers. Why on earth do we think that the opposite is true of God’s law?
Hay Carl, Shabbat shalom. Nice song, good voice.
What is our corporate answer? I don’t know and I don’t care. Yes, ignorance and apathy. Ignorant, apathetic, clueless sheep. Good morning America,- how are you? lol, too true.
Do we the sheeple even have a clue of what we have or are “in Christ?” Too often true that we have not a clue of the power available to us. Pray God we will not have to be driven by tribulation to find it.
–Pray God we will not have to be driven by tribulation to find it.–
Amen to that!- but I gotta say, here lately, I’ve noticed- I seem to always to be learning things “the hard way..” – maybe these are the lessons I wont’ soon forget!!
Inappropriate not appropriate
There are lots of good things in the Bible, quick justice, not years and endless appeals. And posh (by historic standards) prisons. Capital punishment for things we just slap the wrist for and release to murder, maim, and molest again. Repayment of thefts, fare treatment of employees, fare business practices, helping neighbors, orphans, the poor, and widows are positively enlightened and better than we do it today. Other things seem to have no rhyme or reason.
I support the Ten Commandments with all my heart but I just can not get behind many if not most of the other six hundred and three. I pray that does not make me a rebellious person and out of favor with God. But it is what it is.
613, not 603. And in the New Testament, 1086.
But the number isn’t the issue. Have you actually READ the 613? Nearly all of them are no-brainers for people who follow YHWH. There are only a handful that really present problems today for people living OUTSIDE the land. When you say you can’t get behind these, my heart sinks. That implies that you have decided what is right and what is wrong (without the cultural examination, by the way), and that is exactly what Havvah did. She said, “Yes, it doesn’t seem right that God should prohibit this fruit. I think God was mistaken. So I’ll decide for myself what applies to me and what doesn’t”
Just something to think about:
1 Timothy 5:17-18 : ” The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
Paul is upholds the 10 Commandments, but he does not stop there, he appeals to this ‘old law’ verse as still relevant to Timothy.
I doubt anyone here would accuse you of being ‘a rebellious person and out of favor with God’, however, you do seem to be adamant about keeping your beliefs exactly as they are.
“keeping your beliefs exactly as they are”
Anyone who reads this web site and does not put their lifestyle under the microscope with the intent to examine their core beliefs and let God lead them into a closer walk with Him is wasting their time. I find that the comments are as valuable to my understanding and personal growth as the material Skip writes for us. Every post is part of my daily devotion, and I spread it to the places God impresses me that a little fertilize is needed.
Antoneea
There are three groups of people in the world. The Jews, the Christians and the gentiles or unbelievers. Those who call themselves Christians can be further divided int two groups. One group desires to know God’s word and follow His teaching as best they can, and the second group picks and chooses from God’s word what they will decide meets their need. I find it very difficult to stay out of this second group and I understand what Paul said about having to beat himself up daily and subdue this creature called “me” on a daily basis.
Actually, there are only two groups of people in the world. Those who follow YHWH and those who do not. Those who follow are called His children. They include some ethnic Jews, some adopted Gentiles, some God-fearers. The Bible routinely refers to ALL of these as “Israel.” Then there is everyone else. There is no separate category called “Christian.” Christian is the name of a religion, like Buddhist or Muslim. Christian is not a recognizable group in the Biblical text. There are only Jews and Gentiles, where “Jews” are understood to be “those who follow YHWH and His Torah.”
Skip,
I’m not quite ready to give up the woman/church symbolism (or is it allegory?), anyways, it’s been a profitable road to explore. However, I can see that it is a dangerous path, to read in allegorical meanings – and Origin stands as a warning to us all that it can be taken too far.
I don’t think it’s too contrived to say that the Levitical command:
“‘You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin; I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt.” (Lev. 19:36)
… has the further implication of rightly prioritizing God’s commands –
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.” Matthew 23:23
-I’m enjoying the dialogue
Skip thanks for some fine tuning, I agree that in the context of the times and culture the treatment of a girl from a defeated enemy is pretty enlightened. I am of course speaking from my own cultural orientation. Giving a girl a whole month to mourn her dead family before she is, I’ll use the euphemism, ‘married’ may have been a kindness compared to normal practices, but it still seems pretty harsh.
Gabe I am mollified if in fact that particular ritual was not used and successfully served the purpose of a deterrent.
Skip, that is why I said the other 603, the Big Ten are beyond contention, in the next post I acknowledged that there were good laws among them that I wholly endorse. As for tassels I really don’t have a problem with them it was just a convenient handle to use. As far as I am concerned if it does no harm it’s none of my business what someone else is moved to do regarding these ordinances.
Gabe I shall have to reread Timothy with an eye to see to see what you are referring to. Yes I may have become a bit set in my ways but they were hard come by. When I began to learn about God’s ways I gave up Cherished Traditions, I LOVED xmas I mean I started shopping and planning for the next one right at the after xmas sales! and was persecution within my own family, who were oddly enough, not religious. It was hard. I don’t blindly accept anything any more.
Ahhh Rodney, Greetings Agree, disagree, and ???. There is nothing under the sun more foolish that a rangy, craggy featured, 6ft. man with 5 o’clock shadow and an Adam’s apple out to there wearing lipstick, a dress, and high heels. Nuf said. Yes some crops should absolutely not be grown together, and others are extremely beneficial. Quick example. Fennel and tomatoes. There is a grub that likes tomatoes, but it likes fennel more. Plant them together to save your tomatoes and, if you planted the fennel that grows a bulb you have a nice addition to the table to go with your tomatoes. Incidentally the moth that comes from the larvae is actually good for the garden. I am descended from good Nebraska farm stock and while I never made it my livelihood I know how hard a life it can be. Anything that helps you succeed at it, that doesn’t hurt is a good thing. A blanket prohibition seems IMO to be counter productive. As for wool and linen. Are they incompatible? Why? I can see how the strength of linen would be a good compliment for the stretchiness of wool. As for allergies I have them in spades, though not to wool, anyone allergic to wool should not wear it, mixed with other fibers or not.
Tassels, sorry bad example. Due 22:17-18 If the man hates his wife enough to try and get out of the marriage by claiming she was not pure and is going to recent being forced to stay with her, she is going to catch the brunt of his anger. Seems unfair to the girl again a cultural thing probably. In modern Iran a divorced woman most likely will not be married by another and to survive must either beg of prostitute herself. Might be something like that.
Ahh 23:18 Got it! It appeared that whore in :18 referred back to whore in :17, so it seemed logical that dog in :18 would refer back to sodomite in :17. Thanks would never have figured that one out. Sorry 24:1-4 still seems mystifying, illogical, and inconsistent to me. But the mill stone one I now get. In that context don’t take in collateral the means by which the loan repayment needs to be made. That would be foolish of the loaner if he wants to get his investment back.
No, I meant 25:9 Again must be a cultural disconnect having to do with shoes. Some thing there that I am missing. Like a Muslim being insulted if you point the sole of your shoe at him.
“No one is going to stone to death anyone else, or give someone a beating with a lash or cut off a hand etc, etc.”
No, you’re right, because we do not have the Priesthood (who also functioned as the judiciary), the temple nor any of the other prerequisites specified in the Torah to make these judgements and pronounce the prescribed punishments.
I’m afraid that if they ‘the church’ ever starts cutting off hands, or heads or any other body parts (except a certain male organ) I will be exiting it regardless of personal consequences. I think Jesus and His life showed a better way and those ways from the past were for a people who totally didn’t GET IT!
Again tassels was a convenient umbrella to lump a bunch of little things under. But IMO Commandments were given on a mountain top and are definitely Not minutiae. The only one of them in it that is in contention is the Sabbath, making it the least of them in the eyes of many.
I do have a Rrrrealy hard time equating ordinances like not wearing tassels with crucifying Christ.
John, Anyone who reads this web site and does not put their lifestyle under the microscope with the intent to examine their core beliefs and let God lead them into a closer walk with Him is wasting their time.
I am reading this blog exactly for the purpose of putting my life under a microscope! I am just not the pushover that was in my younger days, subscribing to doctrine I didn’t understand, or agree with all because I valued someone else’s intellect, or scholarship, or opinion more than my own.
You must listen (read) Bob Gorelik’s The Captive Woman, if you really want to see just how radically different the Hebrew worldview was in the ancient world – and how differently it treated woman – with dignity and respect. You must put aside your cultural bias when it comes to exegesis. Feel free to pick it up again when you want to APPLY the text, but please do not try to interpret the text from your cultural perspective.
As for distinguishing between the “big 10” and the other 603, perhaps you must first realize that the big 10 are merely SUMMARIES of everything found in the rest, just as Yeshua’s big 2 are summaries.
Yes. There is a definite hierarchy of instructions that were given through Moses. The first and Greatest Commandment – “Hear O Israel, YHVH your God, YHVH is One; you shall love YHVH your God with all your heart, soul and strength.” Alongside it the second, as Yeshua said, “is like it”; “You shall love your neighbour as yourself”.
The “Top 10” are divided into two groups of 5 – the first 5 tell us HOW to Love God, the second 5 tell us HOW to love our neighbour. The rest of the commandments are “case law”, giving specific (but not exhaustive) examples of how to apply the 2 and the 10.
As an aside, I like the way Dr Frank Seekins (of Hebrew Word Pictures fame) describes them; the Hebrew phrase is the 10 devariym which means 10 “words” or 10 “things”. Dr Seekins describes them as the 10 “realities” – descriptions of how things are in the Kingdom of God.
Glad you’re here Antoneea.
I stand corrected about you being ‘adamant to keep your beliefs exactly as they are’. Please keep in mind, that many of the people here – who are exploring the ‘minutiae’ of Torah — are simply trying to get to know our God and Savior better. No one here that I know is trying to put anyone ‘under the law’ (Galatians 5:18). However, speaking for myself only – I am convinced that the ‘law of liberty’ includes more than simply the Big Ten, it also includes the Shema and more:
Mark 12:29-31
” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL ! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD ; 30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ 31 “The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
And since the heart is desperately wicked and who can know it (Jeremiah 17:9),… we return to the scriptures of God, so that we will not each do what is right in our own eyes. (Judges 21:25)
Atoneea,
Yes, this is in the context of the instructions of the Levirate marriage, from Deut 25:5-10. There is an interesting reference to this in the story of Ruth (listen to Skip’s excellent audio series of Ruth). Also, the story of Judah and Tamar is relevant here (which, incidentally, precedes the giving of Torah on Mt Sinai and illustrates the fact that the commandments of God were known prior to the family of Jacob going down to sojourn in Egypt where they were later enslaved).
Again, remembering that the commandments were basically “the constitution” of the community and were taught from a very early age, many of them were deterrents, like Deut 22:17-18. There is another classic one, too…
This is known as “the commandment that was never applied”. The fact that it mentions the parents “chastising” the son implies that the son is still a child under the authority of his parents. In which case, when did you ever hear of a child being a drunkard and a glutton? This appears to be given as a (perhaps slightly “tongue-in-cheek”) deterrent for children reminding them to obey their parents, and perhaps for the parents to use to remind their children of the consequences of disobedience and rebellion.
Once again, it offends our cultural sensibilities but would not have been anything unusual for those to whom it was first given. Today we have more “refined” methods of capital punishment, like electrocution or lethal injection (at least in the USA – we no longer have capital punishment in any form here in Australia). Other (esp. Muslim) countries still have methods of punishment closer to those described in the Torah.
One other thing to remember though; no sentence of capital punishment could be pronounced without the eye-witness testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses, and the witnesses were to cast the first stones. If one maliciously bore false witness, then that one would be subjected to the penalty instead (so as a witness you would want to be very sure of your facts). Many read the instructions as bloodthirsty and barbaric but fail to understand all the safeguards and protections built in to protect the accused. Again, much is lost in linguistic and cultural translation.
Bless you, Antoneea. May we all be found faithful at His return. 🙂
Rodney, I always wondered about that one. It would be hard for parents to do that and if they did the kid must be truly horrible. I had a 2nd cousin who would have nearly qualified. He would brake into his grandmother’s, my dad’s older sister’s, house and steal her social security checks. One time sitting on her while a friend rifled her purse. She and his grandfather had to sell the house and move into their tiny vacation trailer to get away from him.
He was troubled even as a small child, too bad. I have not heard anything about him years he probably came to a bad end, but you hear about people like the Mendez brothers, they really do exist. Thank God you hear more stories of heroic survival and triumph in spit of horrible odds on the other side of that coin.
I guess it’s true what they say, “if it doesn’t kill you it makes you stronger” lol
Skip, Hi Can’t sleep so I am here bugging you instead. I looked for that book at the library, “The Captive Woman”. The librarian diligently searched for it but could not find it anywhere in the library system. She did find it online at Gorelik’s web site. He wants !!!$30.00!!! for it. In your world people may spend $30 for a book as casually as they’d spend $3 for a latte. In my world the latte is an unobtainable luxury. To think that, before Starbucks was a gleam in Jerry Baldwin’s eye, I would drive thirty miles into Seattle to get a cup and now I hesitate to drive 3 or 4 miles and have not bought a latte in years.
If I had the $30 I’d spend it (in descending order of importance) 1. On a speedometer cable to fix the one that just broke on my 20+ yr old, nearly 200,000mi Honda. 2. Get an overdue oil change. 3. Put gas in the tank (had only 25$ or 1/2 a tank this month) 4. Get an ink cartridge for the printer. And way down on the list at 5. Add to the fund to fix a broken molar that the dentist said a year ago could be saved, (I used to take such good care of my teeth) current balance in the fund $00.00.
The day I spend $1,500.00 to put in a crown (I know why they call it a crown. It’s because it costs a kings ransom) is the same day I fly to the moon and hack off a big junk of blue cheese. In the real world I am allergic to Roquefort. True. lol
You asked if I had read the 613 laws. I must have since I have read the Bible from cover to cover but not recently. That will have to be rectified. I am coming from a church back ground that held fast the commandments from the mount but nailed the ‘ordinances’ to the cross. So I have not given must thought to them for the last 20 years or so. I do have a question, and admit almost complete ignorance on the subject. Where do these laws originate? Is this what I have heard called the Oral Law? Any body out there still reading this TW please feel free to educate me.
You can review all 613 at the web site “Judaism 101.” Each one has the Scriptural reference. Maimonides has a 2 volume set on each one of the 613.
Sorry to hear about your current financial difficulties. My wife’s car had more than 220,000 miles on it when it died last month. Actually, it didn’t exactly die. The transmission failed and at $5000 to fix it, we decided we had to let it go and get another car. We went for more than a month with owning only 1 car (my S-10 pickup) between 3 drivers (my son Michael is now living here). The truck has 115,000 miles too and 3 people in that small truck is quite a squeeze. This weekend Rosanne will get a used Honda. That was a blessing. I pray you will find the same relief soon.
Oh, and we know all about “crowns” too. You’re right. The cost is outrageous.
So, Bob Gorelik’s work is many audio lectures plus a workbook. $30 is certainly worth it. This is a very comprehensive treatment of the issues concerning women in the HEbraic culture and in Scripture. I found it particularly useful when I wrote Guardian Angel. I encourage you to make this a priority. While cars are certainly important in this age, understanding God’s word is eternal. So allow me to help you. Order Bob’s book and I will send you half the money. You’ll need to send me your mailing address.