Theological Opinions , PART II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Gwai also brought up Verse 26: "If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die." Too me it seems a single crime justifies the death penalty. Not just the whole batch.

Look at your own quotation. It says, "turns from his righteousness and commits sin." Not "commits a sin." "Commits sin." That could be singular or plural, and seeing as the part that I referenced is decidedly plural, it only makes sense to assume it's talking about the whole batch rather than one.

Furthermore, I think another important thing to note in this chapter is that its main objective is to explain that a son doesn't die for the father's sin but for his own sin. The chapter is trying to explain that this is fair to a culture which believed differently. The purpose of the chapter wasn't to lay down specific times or situations in which the death penalty was to be used. The Penateuch does that. Rather, it was doing something rather like we do when explaining something.

When we want to make an explanation, we might say, "Even if five million is multiplied by zero, the answer is still zero." We're using a big number in order to explain to a someone that zero is the result no matter what number you multiply by zero.

We use this form of explanation in other things too. For example, in my favorite sport fencing an instructor might say, "even if you do a perfect lunge, your body arching out perfectly following your arm and your blade tip touching your opponent's jacket and making a perfect touch, and the director doesn't see it, you don't get the point."

I think that in this chapter, the Lord is doing the same thing. He's taking a whole bunch of evil sins, lumping them all together and saying, "even if a wicked man does all these things and then turns to righteousness, he will be forgiven."

He's not laying out exactly what crimes deserve the death penalty. If you want to argue that the death penalty is used too frequently in the Old Testament, you probably would do best to check out the Pentateuch.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

My NIV text note for the word "soul" says that this translation of the word means the same thing as "life" or "person." The scholars who assembled the NIV say that the word soul, "is not used here to distinguish spirit from body."

Thus there is no reason to think this is talking about the afterlife.

Except for the fact that footnotes are hardly canonical, especially those in translations known for being less accurate.

Anyway, the soul is the principle of life according to the ancients; I imagine this confused your footnoters.

Furthermore, the passage that says, "his blood be on his own head," makes it clear that God is talking about physical rather than spiritual death. Spirits don't have blood.

Blood on one's head is a metaphor, dear Lief. It does not refer to the blood being physically on his head, but to his death being his own fault.

Also, at the end of the chapter, God refers to the death of Israel. That judgment was a historical physical judgment carried out through King Nebuchadnezzar, not a spiritual judgment. Thus, the context indicates that this was a physical death that was described in the earlier parts of the chapter as well.

In the first place, it is not a physical death of Israel, as is manifest from the fact that Israel is not a physical entity.

In the second place, even if it were a physical death, such exegetical technique as you attempt there is more like the art of the contortionist than that of the scholar.

Let us also consider the rest of the content of Ezekiel. Such an abrupt departure into afterlife description would be also a wierd detour, considering the message of the rest of the book. The first 24 chapters of Ezekiel are about the physical destruction and judgment of Israel, and chapters 25-32 are about the physical destructions of the other nations. Chapter 18 fits in neatly with the rest of the message by describing how God's judgment on men works, and it justifies and explains God's use of the death penalty, part of the judgment he was about to inflict on them.


For all these reasons, we can make the reasonable conclusion that in this chapter, God says the death penalty is a deserved judgment for some earthly sins.

Perhaps, but

This means that we don't have the right to seek revenge. Revenge sought by an individual and justice required by a society are two different things.

Justice is not something a nation can measure and weigh; it is the realm of God alone.

Then why is one of the common arguments for the death penalty that it helps the family of a murder victim? How can it help, except to satisfy their thirst for vengeance?

If God established this law, this system of witnesses and judgment by the assembly, and said that the death penalty was good, then it was good, just and holy.

Not so. By no means can everything in the Levitical law be considered to be holy. It contributed to holiness, perhaps, but was not itself holy.

The death penalty is just and God also does not demand exclusive right to use it, but rather commanded his own nation's law officials to use it in the court of law.

In a specific divinely mandated court system, which we do not use.

Jesus also said that he did not come to do away with the Law, and Paul said that the Law was not abolished. Jesus fulfilled the Law rather than abolishing it. How did he fulfill it?

Through taking the basic structure of the Judaic religion and law, and filling it with a new vitalising energy from His Incarnation, Passion, Death, Ressurection, and Ascension.

When people are completely good, they by nature fulfill the spiritual commands of the Law.

No one is completely good. "Who is good but God alone?" "If we say we are without sin, we are liars."

I see the New Covenant revealed in that passage you brought up. Jesus came to have mercy on us, not to exact justice on us. Even so, he said in the scripture, "I do not come to condemn the world but to save it." In the same way, even though this woman he had before him deserved to die, he had mercy on her and saved her.

Not only did he have mercy on her, but he essentially commanded the authorities to do so.

And second of all, it reveals to us that as we are all guilty of sin, we should show mercy as well as justice and should bond our justice system with mercy, just as Jesus did.

Where is the justice in the incident of the harlot? There is none. Only mercy. And that is the Christian message. Any "justice" for you and me means nothing but eternal damnation.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Look at your own quotation. It says, "turns from his righteousness and commits sin." Not "commits a sin." "Commits sin." That could be singular or plural, and seeing as the part that I referenced is decidedly plural, it only makes sense to assume it's talking about the whole batch rather than one.

Sin is a singular noun. It's not like "sheep", where it can be either. "Sins" in the plural.

I checked the Vulgate, and it has the singular "iniquity".

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No one is completely good. "Who is good but God alone?" "If we say we are without sin, we are liars."

I know this is slightly off you guys' topic but....I have been wondering...Catholics believe that Mary was born without Original sin...how can the Bible say that we have all sinned if she was without sin? did she commit some venial sin later in life? I'm confused!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

I know this is slightly off you guys' topic but....I have been wondering...Catholics believe that Mary was born without Original sin...how can the Bible say that we have all sinned if she was without sin? did she commit some venial sin later in life? I'm confused!

We Orthodox have disagreed with this Catholic point...the Immaculate Conception. We don't stress a certain teaching on it, but it is not deemed a necessary theological point.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

We Orthodox have disagreed with this Catholic point...the Immaculate Conception. We don't stress a certain teaching on it, but it is not deemed a necessary theological point.

As I understand it, a minority hold to the Immaculate Conception, some believe she was purified at the Annunciation/Incarnation, and some believe she was purified at in the womb (as St. John the Baptist).

But anyway, Arien, the Bible can say so, because this is a figure of speech. Aristotle mentions this in the Rhetoric, where he says that a species may be used to signify the genus, "all" being a species of the genus "many". Or, of course, there is the fact that it "all men" is not quite the same as "every man", but refers more to the universal than to each individual particular.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As I understand it, a minority hold to the Immaculate Conception, some believe she was purified at the Annunciation/Incarnation, and some believe she was purified at in the womb (as St. John the Baptist).

But anyway, Arien, the Bible can say so, because this is a figure of speech. Aristotle mentions this in the Rhetoric, where he says that a species may be used to signify the genus, "all" being a species of the genus "many". Or, of course, there is the fact that it "all men" is not quite the same as "every man", but refers more to the universal than to each individual particular.

I myself have never done much reading up on it...which is why it's so handy to have you around

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

We Orthodox have disagreed with this Catholic point...the Immaculate Conception. We don't stress a certain teaching on it, but it is not deemed a necessary theological point.

And therefore, you are not actually orthodox. (Just teasin' ya, Hekky )

[Arien the Maia]

thanks boys! you two are quite handy to have around!

I know as a Catholic that we don't take everything in the Bible as law since we believe that the Majesterium and Oral Tradition play a vital part. And I was aware that the Orthodox differ from the Catholics regarding Mary's Immacualte Conception. Do the Orthodox believe in Mary's perpetual virginity? I mean what is the main reason for the Schism? The Pope?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And therefore, you are not actually orthodox. (Just teasin' ya, Hekky )

Gwaimir, are you in possession of an honorable weapon? *thinks about a duel*

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

thanks boys! you two are quite handy to have around!

I know as a Catholic that we don't take everything in the Bible as law since we believe that the Majesterium and Oral Tradition play a vital part. And I was aware that the Orthodox differ from the Catholics regarding Mary's Immacualte Conception. Do the Orthodox believe in Mary's perpetual virginity? I mean what is the main reason for the Schism? The Pope?

I think we DO believe in her virginity, yes. I don't remember it bieng an issue during schism time...*lists*

Ah yes, schism reasons:

Pope's Absolute Authority in East
Filioque
Leavened and Unleavened bread (not big deal! )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's good to hear that I have some use.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's good to hear that I have some use.

You flat-bread eater! C'est anathema!

[Arien the Maia]

so can Catholics receive the Eucharist at Orthodox Chruches and vice versa? I know that we each honor and awknowledge each other's Sacraments. I've always wanted to go to an Orthodox Mass...and also to an Eastern Catholic Mass...unfortunately for me, there are no Eastern Catholic Churches in my area I would have to go up to Chicago. There are 3 Orthodox Churches in my city though.

and what exactly is Filioque?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

so can Catholics receive the Eucharist at Orthodox Chruches and vice versa? I know that we each honor and awknowledge each other's Sacraments. I've always wanted to go to an Orthodox Mass...and also to an Eastern Catholic Mass...unfortunately for me, there are no Eastern Catholic Churches in my area I would have to go up to Chicago. There are 3 Orthodox Chrues in my city though.

Lots to explain, so little time! Library is closing...adieu for now!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

so can Catholics receive the Eucharist at Orthodox Chruches and vice versa? I know that we each honor and awknowledge each other's Sacraments. I've always wanted to go to an Orthodox Mass...and also to an Eastern Catholic Mass...unfortunately for me, there are no Eastern Catholic Churches in my area I would have to go up to Chicago. There are 3 Orthodox Churches in my city though.

and what exactly is Filioque?

Rome says Catholics may receive at Orthodox Churches under certain circumstances (Canon 844.2 "Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid."), but the Orthodox disagree; under most circumstances (with the possible exception of danger of death) it will be very difficult to find an Orthodox priest willing to administer the Mysteries to a Papist. Also, the Orthodox are not allowed to receive at Catholic churches.

You can, however, go to the Divine Liturgy in an Orthodox Church. Just A) Make sure you get to a Catholic Church, to fulfill your obligation, and B) don't receive. I myself considered making a retreat at a Coptic Orthodox monastery over the summer, though I decided it would be silly to make a retreat where I couldn't receive.

While you are right that we acknolwedge the validity of Orthodox sacraments, to say that they do likewise is a generalisation. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and while many affirm the validity of our sacraments, some do not; some even deny our baptism, re-baptizing converts from Catholicism.

Filioque is a word inserted into the Creed: "Et [credo] in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit"; "And [I believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Vivifying One, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son". It is an affirmation of the Double Procession, namely, the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. Most Orthodox consider it heretical, and those who do not censure Rome for inserting the word without a General Council.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Except for the fact that footnotes are hardly canonical, especially those in translations known for being less accurate.

Anyway, the soul is the principle of life according to the ancients; I imagine this confused your footnoters.

They're a highly professional group of Christian Biblical scholars and you have presented no evidence that contradicts what they said. So there is no reason to disbelieve them, unless you simply want to disbelieve them.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Blood on one's head is a metaphor, dear Lief. It does not refer to the blood being physically on his head, but to his death being his own fault.

You can think that. But there's no reason to .

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

In the first place, it is not a physical death of Israel, as is manifest from the fact that Israel is not a physical entity.

He was speaking of the people of Israel. This was predicted again in the next two chapters, if I recall correctly. And historically, many of them did indeed die.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

In the second place, even if it were a physical death, such exegetical technique as you attempt there is more like the art of the contortionist than that of the scholar.

So if I say that physical death is what is described in this context, I'm a contortionist, but if you say it's spiritual death that's described, you're a scholar .

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Justice is not something a nation can measure and weigh; it is the realm of God alone.

Down with the justice system! Up with the "flag" of anarchy! And everyone repeat after me: No justice, no justice, no justice, no justice!

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Then why is one of the common arguments for the death penalty that it helps the family of a murder victim? How can it help, except to satisfy their thirst for vengeance?

One way in which it helps is that it prevents this particular person from doing the same again. Many times people are able to get out of their prison terms early because of appeals or shortage of space in prison, or for other reasons. Often, these convicts will go on to do the same crimes again.

Also, it is written in the Epistles that sometimes when people are judged in the body, this saves them in spirit.

Furthermore, it is just naturally right that everyone should get what they deserve, be it good or bad. But I believe in mercy too, which is why I don't believe in drawing and quartering, even though that might be deserved as a punishment for some crimes.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not so. By no means can everything in the Levitical law be considered to be holy. It contributed to holiness, perhaps, but was not itself holy.

It's God's Word. I consider God's Word to be holy.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

In a specific divinely mandated court system, which we do not use.

Are you saying that you don't believe the Israelites ever made any mistakes in their courts?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Through taking the basic structure of the Judaic religion and law, and filling it with a new vitalising energy from His Incarnation, Passion, Death, Ressurection, and Ascension.

Granted that there is more than one dimension to this. In one sense, he fulfilled it because the Law was prophetic and it all predicts the coming of Christ. Christ's life (and death, etc.) was one great fulfillment of the Old Testament, so in that sense he certainly fulfilled the Law.

Yet he also fulfilled it inside people's hearts, which is why he taught that the kingdom of heaven is in the heart.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No one is completely good. "Who is good but God alone?" "If we say we are without sin, we are liars."

Yet when Christ enters people's hearts, he transforms them and makes them righteous, crucifying our iniquity in the process of the Holy Spirit's sanctification. He makes us holy. So we have sin still, but it is steadily eaten away as God's holiness comes more and more fully to dominate in our lives. This is another dimension of the fulfillment of the Law, and this is why the Law no longer applies to Christ's followers. For when they are already fulfilling by nature the spirit of the Law, there is no need for the letter of the Law to bind them.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not only did he have mercy on her, but he essentially commanded the authorities to do so.

Yep! Which doesn't mean all authorities are to have mercy on everyone all the time . That's an extrapolation of monumental proportions.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Where is the justice in the incident of the harlot? There is none. Only mercy. And that is the Christian message. Any "justice" for you and me means nothing but eternal damnation.

This is all extrapolation, and there is nothing in the scripture that implies it. Christians are not under the law but under grace, so long as they abide in that grace.

Paul says in the Epistles that the Lord will always discipline those he loves. The Father gives us spankings, just as any (or most, I should say) loving fathers will do for their children. Justice still exists, but only as a last resort after mercy is offered at every prior opportunity. If mercy is rejected, then God has nothing left to offer but justice. This is how he behaves very consistently in the Old Testament and the New, offering mercy again and again, until there is nothing left to offer but justice.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Filioque is a word inserted into the Creed: "Et [credo] in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit"; "And [I believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Vivifying One, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son". It is an affirmation of the Double Procession, namely, the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. Most Orthodox consider it heretical, and those who do not censure Rome for inserting the word without a General Council.

Ah yes, My high school religion is coming back to me now....the Orthodox say that the Holy Spirt procedes from the Father through the Son...right?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

Ah yes, My high school religion is coming back to me now....the Orthodox say that the Holy Spirt procedes from the Father through the Son...right?

No. Most Orthodox say the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. "From the Father, through the Son" is an explanation of the Filioque that some have proposed to bridge East and West, which is acceptable to Rome and to many Orthodox.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No. Most Orthodox say the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. "From the Father, through the Son" is an explanation of the Filioque that some have proposed to bridge East and West, which is acceptable to Rome and to many Orthodox.

oh...NOW I get it!