Now that kind of I know what you are talking about, I respectively disagree with this statement. Although what is meant by the “Summary of the Law”?
Jesus clearly states that if you love him you will keep his commandments. Jesus did not lift the law, i.e. the Ten C.'s, but fulfill it with his teaching without which man can not on his own power understand what the Ten Commandments really mean.
Joel, I had thought we’d covered that in earlier threads, so I apologize for not spelling out what I meant but referring to it by a common (largely Protestant) title. In several of the gospels, Jesus is asked something about the law, and responds by quoting Hillel’s celebrated “give me the basis of the law while standing on one foot” response: “Love the Lord…with all your heart and mind… and love your neighbor as yourself.” The scenarios vary; in one it’s a response to the rich young man, in another a lead-in to the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
For me, that phrase is the key to Jesus’s teachings – by it, he summarizes ethical behavior for a believer. And I infer from his teachings and actions that he applies it in such a way as to make it in effect a Constitutional principle to which application of the other law must fit. E.g., “Thou shalt not steal” – to take one example from the Ten Commandments – is nearly always the proper ethical thing to do, the way to show love of God and Man. But if, by careful casuistry, one structures a scenario in which the refusal to steal goes against showing love for God and Man, then the proper thing to do is to steal, ethically. Granted that this is one of those insanely improbable scenarios, it holds. (And note also that the average human being can find a way to rationalize his behavior to fit such a tortured explanation…also not what Jesus meant.)
I look forward to reading your response to that thesis.
If this premise were true, it would be a real stinker that God never said, “Thy water shalt thou boil before drinking of it; to a full boil shalt thou bring it, that no unclean being may survive within the water.” Think of the tragedies that could have been averted.
OK, that is what I thought you meant. But “summary” is a dangerous misnomer, because it could be construed to imply that those commandments stand on their own. Which they can not because they leave a gaping question – how?
Matthew 22:
These are not a summary of the law, but merely the most important commandments in the law. Jesus’s other commandments are still required to explain how. You might really want to bake a cake, but merely desiring to bake a cake with all your heart is entirely insufficient without the recipe with which to do so. If you call the desire to bake a cake the summary of how to bake a cake, who knows what you might end up cooking?
(I don’t mean to imply that you have entirely fallen into this error, but it is a common one.)
But that also is dangerous. If you open that aperature ever so slightly, all hell can break loose. It is written that a just man falls seven times a day. (That is not, of couse, a requirement!). But if that man does not acknowledge that he has fallen he might well keep sinking. You give the devil an inch, and he takes a mile. So you had better be on your guard not to give him an inch in the first place or and not to justify your failings because that inch is the first on the road to perdition.
Remember the words of James 1:
I get what you are saying. We could take an example that you are starving, wandering through the desert, and you come across a fruit stand. But there is no vendor there. If there was, you could ask for a fruit and if he refused perhaps in you dire situation offer something in trade (for example, if all else fails, not to die on the spot and attract vultures – you really want a rotting corpse in front of your place of buisness?). If he still refused, I would say you are basically hosed. But, there is no vendor there. Maybe he just stepped out. Maybe he wandered off and died of a heart attack leaving no heirs. Maybe the fruit stand just fell off the back of a passing C-130 and has essentially been abandoned. There is no way for you to know taking the fruit would be wrong. So, IMHO, eat. Drink. Be merry. You’ve ground-scored a fruit cart in the middle of the desert!
If the owner shows up at some point, all you can do is ask his forgiveness and give him back the cart. But I wouldn’t say you’ve sinned against the law.
Tell me that this is literal…
adam yax:
Actually, it is literal. It is (check out the context) part of a curse regarding what will happen to the Israelites if they fail to heed the laws of the Bible. The Rabbis have linked this curse to occurrences during the Roman conquest of Israel.
As Chaim pointed out, it is literal. When Jerusalem was under seige by the Romans, a famine ensued. Some parents, when nothing else was left, ate their own children.
Zev Steinhardt
If you take it literally, how do you handle the obvious contradictions?
IE:
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
or
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
DoubleClick:
Oh, boy, not another one with pre-fabricated “Biblical contradiction lists.” I’ll assume you’re posting this in good faith this once, and explain the (Orthodox) Jewish religious view on the “contradiction” in this post, but don’t expect responses to additional ones.
As it says in Psalms, G-d has mercy on all. However, said mercy is not, in the Earthly sense (see below for what I mean by that) infinite. It involves giving sinners a chance to repent. However, in Jeremiah, G-d is talking about what he intends to do to a Judean nation which has had almost four hundred years worth of “second chances,” but refuses to repent.
And, in the ultimate sense, punishment of the wicked is
a form of mercy. It provides the lessons that allow the witnesses to draw conclusions regarding the wages of sin. And for the sinners themselves, the suffering provides some degree of absolution for their souls, allowing those souls to move on.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Zev, CMKeller (&Chaim): Oh my Biblical brothers. You misunderstood Adams query, and gave him ammo in a PIT thread, (Starts “OH, Lord…”). He is now convinced that that verse in Duet, was not a curse- but an order from G-d, ie not only is it OK to eat your kids, but that the Lord commanded it. It is indeed, as you said- a curse- it is not an instruction, command, or “okey dokey, you can do this”- in fact cannabalism, or mistreatment of your children is expressly forbiden to the Jews by the OT. And, never in the Bible, does any “kid-eating” occur. It is true, that some 1000 years later, cannabalism did apparently occur in the siege of Jerusalem ( but this was after the OT was written), and that some Jews think that these terrible things happened because of that curse coming to be. You must be careful in what you post in reply to some of these Bible-haters, as they will turn & twist your words.
Please correct his “mis-understnding”.
Thanks for the heads-up, Daniel, but quite frankly, reading over my post, I can’t see how it could possibly be misunderstood that way.
If he’s twisting it, it’s intentional on his part, not a misunderstanding.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Daniel,
There is a story in the Midrash as follows:
God was dictating the Torah to Moses. In Genesis, God told Moses to write “Na’aseh Adam” (literally, let us make man.)
Moses said, "But God, people who read this will interpret this to mean that there are multiple gods. It should be changed to “E’eseh Adam” {I will make man). God responded by saying “Whoever wants to err, let him err.” In short, if someone is going to misinterpret what you say, even after you’ve already explained it to him, then there’s nothing you can do. That’s why it says “Whoever wants to err,” not “whoever errs.”
Zev Steinhardt
The vision of Moses makeing editorial suggestions to the Supreme Being did make me break out in a big grin, I will admit. I think the word is “Chutzpa”.
Umm, any chance of you guys sticking your heads into the PIT long enuf to explain he is misinterpreting you?
I believe Zev and others already responded to his absurdity.
However, I’ll keep peeking in at that thread to see if it justifies breaking my Pit virginity.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Are you sure?
The verses in Dt. are a reference to events like this during the Babylonian siege of the Southern Kingdom. The scholarly opinion is that the verses in Dt. were written in by a later editor of the Deuteronomistic history (Dt. thru 2nd Kg.), in order to explain why the promise of the eternal Davidic covenant had failed, via the reemphasis of the older, conditional Mosaic covenant. Part of this shift in emphasis involved listing the consequences of disobedience, which was pretty easy to do seeing how they had just happened 20-30 years ago.
Daniel’s comment:
reminds me of the following (detached punchline only):
“Ten billion years!? But Moses, we only have six sheets of papyrus.”