Apostacy in the Bible

[NiceCupOfTea]

Deteronomy 17 says that apostates should be killed

Deuteronomy 17:2-7 (New International Version)

2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.

does this law still stand today ?

and if not why not ?

 

[Thomas]

Deteronomy 17 says that apostates should be killed
does this law still stand today ?

No.

and if not why not ?

Because of the New Testament. Jesus taught to preach, and if people will not listen, walk away.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." (Matthew 10:24, Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5)

Thomas

 

[Dream]

Because of the New Testament. Jesus taught to preach, and if people will not listen, walk away.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." (Matthew 10:24, Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5)

Hi Thomas and NiceCupofTea and anyone else.

I do not follow above reasoning. In the passage Jesus is sending his disciples to people that are already Jews, so they are already abiding in a covenant but in what way are they breaking it?
Is there some indication that they are breaking the covenant by refusing the apostles?

Also, NiceCup, Thomas, all, how would Jesus telling his disciples to walk away imply that the original command to kill was disbursed? In other words, if these preach-ees are under the covenant and if the covenant literally ordered preach-ers to kill covenant breakers, then Jesus himself was under orders to kill them. He therefore was breaking the covenant himself by not doing so, but he did not order them killed. Assuming Jesus was not a covenant breaker, I make an argument that either the covenant was not being broken by these people or that the commandment to kill covenant breakers was not literal.

 

[Amergin]

After the Israelites left Egypt and began a life as desert nomads, Moses devised a brand new religion, influenced by the Egyptian Sun God, Aten. Jews had a polytheistic religion (with Gods referred to as Elohim) and monotheists (JHWY the Fire God.)

I believe that the exodus of slaves from Egypt was not a homogeneous group of Amorite (Jews), North African Berbers, Arabs, Sudanese or Nubians, and perhaps some other unlucky minority. They were not a single ethnic group. This is just my opinion based on the conditions in Egypt at the time of Exodus.

Moses needed to unify his group to solidify his power as their monarch. Similarly, Emperor Constantine a millennium later forced Romans to become Christians to unify an unravelling Roman Empire.

Moses, who wrote the first five books of the Bible, collected various myths about creation and gods. He decided on JHWY the Fire God, perhaps relating to the burning bush in Sinai (fire from a methane vent as still found on Mt. Sinai.) Moses needed to make his belief the belief of all his followers, Amorites, Arabs, Berbers, and residual Hyksos into a "nation." Moses enforced his monotheistic religion, with the commandments he carved on the Mountain. He needed to have penalties for those who reverted to older ethnic gods.

The story of the Golden Calf is an account of some of Moses' mixed ethnic people who tried to keep their old Idol of the Golden Calf. Moses felt he needed to be brutal and frightening to all of his people. Therefore, he sent his Levite warriors to slaughter 3000 of his people.

This would scare other members of the group into dreadful submission and obedience. I do not know if those Golden Calf people were Amorite, Hyksos, or Arabic Semites or perhaps non-Semites such as the Berbers, Egyptians, Nubians, or other minority making up the heterogeneous Moses Nation.

Moses was quite successful in beginning the unification of his nomadic people into one nation with uniform language and religion. That led soon to inter-ethnic breeding that produced what we now call Israelites.

Killing 3000 religious dissenters was terrible and wrong, but it worked for Moses in creating the Nomadic Nation of Israel. It is a method used by unscrupulous leaders like Constantine, Theodosius II, Charlemagne, Oliver Cromwell, Henry VIII, Martin Luther, Spanish Christian Kings, Popes/Crusades, and others.

Most people now identified as an Ethnic group have DNA evidence of many other ethnic groups over many millennia. My Celtic identity contains various admixtures of Pre-Indo-European (Cro-Magnon), Gaels, Iberians, Norse, Normans, and English. Although most people as Irish regard me, I realise that many other ethnic groups contributed genes to my line.

This also applies to those who identify as Jews. Their genetic mixture is far more heterogeneous than mine is.

Amergin

 

[Dream]

After the Israelites left Egypt and began a life as desert nomads, Moses devised a brand new religion, influenced by the Egyptian Sun God, Aten. Jews had a polytheistic religion (with Gods referred to as Elohim) and monotheists (JHWY the Fire God.)

Most Americans don't come from the pilgrims. We all celebrate thanksgiving with mashed-potatoes and green beans, and we tell the story of 'Our ancestors' the Pilgrims. It doesn't matter if we don't really come from the Pilgrims. Its a great story, so we keep it. What's wrong with that?

What we know is that Israel was a group of diverse people that all made a pact to live together, to take care of each other and to have certain rules to live by. That is the boring version, and its probably 98% the entire true story. Think of Moses as a Paul Bunyan. There is no need to make Paul Bunyan into a real guy. This thing about saying Moses was chieftain who was also a genius is just fluff. In a sense it is like you are taking Paul Bunyan, a character out of a story, and saying he killed all the native Americans and he founded the 3 major branches of US government. Well, he didn't. We did. Only we didn't either, because we weren't alive that long ago. Events happen but the telling is an art.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Amergin —

After the Israelites left Egypt and began a life as desert nomads...

On the whole I enjoy your posts, but you must see that all this detail is interesting — to the believer they are not central to the religious debate, nor should they be.

For example, in the literature of the region, we have the Epic of Gilgamesh, and in Scripture, we have the Story of Noah and the Flood. It would seem that both draw from the same ancient and oral tradition, both address the same metaphysical issues: man and the gods; man's relationship to the gods; life and death; immortality ...

... but one cannot say say that the Account of the Flood in Scripture is simply a monotheistic retread of the Epic of Gilgamesh — the difference of theological and metaphysical vision between the two is everything and undeniable.

In the same manner, what attracts me to Catholicism is not so much the materiality of the religion, which will have much in common with every religion in that all address similar fundamental issues — and man is the same the world over — but the proposition the religion makes, and here, I would suggest, each religion offers its own inique proposition — and a proposition that cannot be derived from apparent superficial similarities among traditions.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I do not follow above reasoning. In the passage Jesus is sending his disciples to people that are already Jews, so they are already abiding in a covenant but in what way are they breaking it?

Well, there are a number of answers ... all men are sinners; what Jesus brings is the means by which to transcend the human condition, and thus the way to eternal life ... He came to the Jews first because the Jews were the first to be receptive to Divine Revelation, they are the elder brother of humanity ...

Is there some indication that they are breaking the covenant by refusing the apostles?

What they are refusing is the Word of God entrusted to the apostles. Christ's message is the spirit that illuminates and gives life to the Law.

Also ... how would Jesus telling his disciples to walk away imply that the original command to kill was disbursed?

Jesus 'updated' the Decalogue (See the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7) and gave a new insight to the nature of the Law. The old law is not so much disbursed – when God says is spoken and cannot be disbursed — but rather points at man's reception of the Divine Word, and man's interpretation of the Divine Word. And the Word is Love.

'Turn the other cheek' and the many other references to forgiveness rather than revenge. At His arrest, Jesus says: "Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)

It's not about payback ...

In other words, if these preach-ees are under the covenant and if the covenant literally ordered preach-ers to kill covenant breakers, then Jesus himself was under orders to kill them. He therefore was breaking the covenant himself by not doing so, but he did not order them killed. Assuming Jesus was not a covenant breaker, I make an argument that either the covenant was not being broken by these people or that the commandment to kill covenant breakers was not literal.

Or that Jesus is God, and thus can establish a New Covenant.

Thomas

 

[Dream]

What is more pitiable than a man who is too stupid please a wife? So I point out Moses' defects. Moses own sons were going to be killed because he neglected to circumcise. His wife did the deed for him and effectively accused him of trying to kill their children. She proved to be better than him in this respect: that she was consistent and acted prudently. He is said to be the humblest man in the world.

Enter Jesus many centuries later, who appears to be doing the same thing as Moses. In Jesus case, Zipporah is rebuked in the form of his apostles (they ask him if they should call down fiery judgment on those who did not receive the message). He rebukes them, and it is as if Moses has rebuked Zipporah. For Moses Zipporah was correct, but for Jesus she was not. I still do not get it.

The point is not what you'd expect but to admit that some men, perhaps myself, are too stupid to get-it. We are seen as honest and humble but are generally just overestimated. Moses is like this, a humble man of poor speaking ability. He spent many years herding. It is notable that the Bible makes no mention of any special skill of his as a breeder or a herdsman like it does of other characters, and it expressly mentions his needing the advice of his father in law. I doubt he would have understood or accepted any of the nuanced arguments that many people consider theological discussion nowadays.

 

[bananabrain]

does this law still stand today?

yes, it does - all the laws of the Torah do. whether it is observable, however, is an entirely different matter. for a start, there is no court qualified and empowered to pass such a sentence, even without the numerous safeguards and caveats attached to the prosecution of a capital crime under halakhah, including qualified witnesses. most importantly, this law is intended for *jews* (among you), living in the *land of israel* (one of the towns G!D Gives you) who are engaging in "seven nations idolatry" which has been defunct for two thousand years and good riddance. so, although the law still stands, the possibility of it being observed is zilch. jesus is not relevant to the case in point.

What we know is that Israel was a group of diverse people that all made a pact to live together, to take care of each other and to have certain rules to live by. That is the boring version, and its probably 98% the entire true story. Think of Moses as a Paul Bunyan. There is no need to make Paul Bunyan into a real guy. This thing about saying Moses was chieftain who was also a genius is just fluff. In a sense it is like you are taking Paul Bunyan, a character out of a story, and saying he killed all the native Americans and he founded the 3 major branches of US government. Well, he didn't. We did. Only we didn't either, because we weren't alive that long ago. Events happen but the telling is an art.

precisely - and living by the Torah that comes from these events is also an art and a science and a discipline.

what Jesus brings is the means by which to transcend the human condition, and thus the way to eternal life

whereas we don't see the human condition as something to be transcended, but rather as something to be improved; we do this not in hope of eternal life, whatever that may be, nor to avoid damnation and hellfire, which we don't hold with, but simply because three thousand years ago we promised we would.

Moses is like this, a humble man of poor speaking ability.

but nonetheless a man of supreme ability as a prophet.

He spent many years herding.

and many years in study, many years as an aristocrat and many years as a leader of the people.

I doubt he would have understood or accepted any of the nuanced arguments that many people consider theological discussion nowadays.

there's actually a very interesting talmudic story (BT menakhoth 41b i think) about how moses asks G!D on sinai how this whole Torah law thing is going to pan out and why there are crowns on the letters and G!D shows him a vision of rabbi aqiba teaching his class about the laws derived from the crowns on the letters, in which moses is sat in the back row (with the least advanced students) - moses doesn't understand the stuff aqiba is teaching, but is comforted when one of the students asks the source of these laws and aqiba replies that it is derived from a tradition given to moses on sinai. it's quite a deep story, especially when moses starts wondering what great reward aqiba merits from his towering scholarship.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Dream]

precisely - and living by the Torah that comes from these events is also an art and a science and a discipline.

I have had in small ways opportunity now to see this art/science/discipline in several venues. Certainly Moses benefited from it.

but nonetheless a man of supreme ability as a prophet.

and many years in study, many years as an aristocrat and many years as a leader of the people.

Points taken. He held several responsible positions.

moses doesn't understand the stuff aqiba is teaching, but is comforted when one of the students asks the source of these laws and aqiba replies that it is derived from a tradition given to moses on sinai. it's quite a deep story, especially when moses starts wondering what great reward aqiba merits from his towering scholarship.

I think that aqiba would have a similar reaction to today's practices but after some explanation would be pleased with many of the accomplishments.

 

[Dream]

Well, there are a number of answers ... all men are sinners; what Jesus brings is the means by which to transcend the human condition, and thus the way to eternal life ... He came to the Jews first because the Jews were the first to be receptive to Divine Revelation, they are the elder brother of humanity ...

What they are refusing is the Word of God entrusted to the apostles. Christ's message is the spirit that illuminates and gives life to the Law.

Jesus 'updated' the Decalogue (See the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7) and gave a new insight to the nature of the Law. The old law is not so much disbursed – when God says is spoken and cannot be disbursed — but rather points at man's reception of the Divine Word, and man's interpretation of the Divine Word. And the Word is Love.....

Or that Jesus is God, and thus can establish a New Covenant.

I will give some thought to these. I think I follow what you are saying. You are emphasizing the living aspect of the law and the central focus on love. Hopefully NiceCupofTea feels their question has been treated as well.

 

[Thomas]

whereas we don't see the human condition as something to be transcended, but rather as something to be improved; we do this not in hope of eternal life, whatever that may be, nor to avoid damnation and hellfire, which we don't hold with, but simply because three thousand years ago we promised we would.

And in many respects, that puts us to shame.

God bless,

Thomas