The pope, the rabbi, and the Torah

[Kendall K. Down]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9925805/Israeli-rabbis-ask-pope-clarify-remarks-Jewish-law.html

Apparently Pope Francis, in an audience, remarked on standard Christian
teaching. "The law (Torah) however does not give life. It does not offer
the fulfilment of the promise because it is not capable of being able to
fulfil it... Those who seek life need to look to the promise and to its
fulfilment in Christ."

This upset a certain Rabbi Arousi, who wrote to the Vatican to complain:
"In his homily, the pope presents the Christian faith as not just
superseding the Torah; but asserts that the latter no longer gives life,
implying that Jewish religious practice in the present era is rendered
obsolete."

Which, of course, is exactly what Christians have been teaching ever
since the days of St Paul. The law cannot give life - not because there
is anything wrong with the law; in fact St Paul declares that the law is
good and spiritual and further states that if life could be given by the
law, the Torah would be the law to do it.

The problem lies in the fact that we cannot keep the law, and despite
all their additions to the Torah, the Jews are spectacularly unable to
keep the law. (According to Qol Israel, Israel has the highest
proportion of babies born out of wedlock of any Western country!)

Furthermore - and this is a point that should be concerning Rabbi Arousi
rather than anything the pope may have said - Jews at present are unable
to put into practice the only remedy for sin provided by the law,
namely, the sacrifice of animals in the temple. Women cannot cleanse
themselves after child birth, men cannot cleanse themselves are becoming
ritually unclean - the whole nation is unclean according to the Torah
which Rabbi Arousi is so exercised about!

The pope is, therefore, strictly accurate when he says that the only
solution is to turn to Christ, the great Sacrifice for sin.

If Arousi feels that the pope is wrong, he is welcome to explain - from
the Torah - how the law can give life when the sacrifices it mandates
are not possible?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Mike Davis]

Basically repeating your theme above, if the priestly sacrifices had
'worked' (and I'm not really clear why they didn't), we wouldn't need Jesus.

But as you say, since the destruction of the Temple, they cannot be
carried out.

This matches my query in the 'forgiveness' thread.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Adam Funk]

To be fair, the Temple was destroyed by the Roman occupying forces.

> This matches my query in the 'forgiveness' thread.
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Davis
>


--

There's nothing in Scripture that forbids letting our lawn
go wild. --- Garrison Keillor

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/08/2021 19:03, Mike Davis wrote:

> Basically repeating your theme above, if the priestly sacrifices had
> 'worked' (and I'm not really clear why they didn't), we wouldn't need
> Jesus.

I don't believe that the animal sacrifices - whether by the Jews or by
Abel or Abraham - were intended to "work". They pointed forward to the
one true Sacrifice. Much like you claim that the mass is a repetition or
continuation of Jesus' death, so the sacrifices of the Old Testament
were a pre-continuation (no such word but I hope you can work out what I
mean) of Jesus' death.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/08/2021 19:28, Adam Funk wrote:

> To be fair, the Temple was destroyed by the Roman occupying forces.

I'm not sure what you intend to convey by that remark. Who-ever
destroyed the temple, it was done with the sanction of God and signified
that the temple was no longer important to Him. It is not without
significance that the temple has never been rebuilt (and doesn't look
likely to be rebuilt).

[Jason]

I've never been too sure really of the purpose of the OT sacrifices,
other than (for example) making yourself "ritually clean" or whatever.
I've heard the some of the "standard" Christian thoughts (such as the
"pre-figuring" of Jesus' death as you mention above) but if so is it not
a bit odd, not least for all the "red in tooth and claw" killing that's
involved.

But really it's that if it is a "pre-figuring" of Jesus' death, the
symbolism seems a bit strange. For Jesus' case, it's God that made the
sacrifice, not us. The OT sacrifices are all "by works": if you make
this sacrifice then I will make you clean". It doesn't seem to make a
good exemplar....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/08/2021 16:04, Jason wrote:

> I've never been too sure really of the purpose of the OT sacrifices,
> other than (for example) making yourself "ritually clean" or whatever.
> I've heard the some of the "standard" Christian thoughts (such as the
> "pre-figuring" of Jesus' death as you mention above) but if so is it not
> a bit odd, not least for all the "red in tooth and claw" killing that's
> involved.

Given that animals needed to be killed for food, adding in a religious
element made the sacrifices dual-purpose. Just think how many animals
are slaughtered here in Britain every day; makes the Jewish sacrifices
pale into insignificance.

> But really it's that if it is a "pre-figuring" of Jesus' death, the
> symbolism seems a bit strange. For Jesus' case, it's God that made the
> sacrifice, not us. The OT sacrifices are all "by works": if you make
> this sacrifice then I will make you clean". It doesn't seem to make a
> good exemplar....

Actually, if you think about it, it was the lamb/goat/bull which made
the sacrifice. You, the sinner, simply received its benefits. Sounds
very similar to Jesus!

[Jason]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 18:04:29 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 29/08/2021 16:04, Jason wrote:
>
>> I've never been too sure really of the purpose of the OT sacrifices,
>> other than (for example) making yourself "ritually clean" or whatever.
>> I've heard the some of the "standard" Christian thoughts (such as the
>> "pre-figuring" of Jesus' death as you mention above) but if so is it
>> not a bit odd, not least for all the "red in tooth and claw" killing
>> that's involved.
>
> Given that animals needed to be killed for food, adding in a religious
> element made the sacrifices dual-purpose. Just think how many animals
> are slaughtered here in Britain every day; makes the Jewish sacrifices
> pale into insignificance.

It's not the quantity of animals involved, it's the necessity of this
particular use. I'm not sure "well animals are killed everyday for food"
is a good reason to kill them (for example) for sporting reasons. It's
just a little bit strange (from the admittedly remote perspective of a
human living 2000 years after Christ) to want these sort of sacrifice.
It would be equally odd if I asked my brother what he'd like a a thank-
you for doing some decorating and he said "two fatted male pigeons and
the fat around the kidneys of a two year old bull" or something.

>> But really it's that if it is a "pre-figuring" of Jesus' death, the
>> symbolism seems a bit strange. For Jesus' case, it's God that made the
>> sacrifice, not us. The OT sacrifices are all "by works": if you make
>> this sacrifice then I will make you clean". It doesn't seem to make a
>> good exemplar....
>
> Actually, if you think about it, it was the lamb/goat/bull which made
> the sacrifice. You, the sinner, simply received its benefits. Sounds
> very similar to Jesus!

If the lamb/goat/bull willingly came and laid down it's life I would
agree with you. If someone else simply grabbed it and killed it, I think
it's a stretch....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/08/2021 12:14, Jason wrote:

> It's not the quantity of animals involved, it's the necessity of this
> particular use.

There is another aspect to things. Ancient Israel was a pastoral economy
and wealth was measured by the number and quality of the cattle he
possessed. (The Masai are a similar economy of today.) Today if someone
offends he is fined a sum of money; in ancient times if someone offended
he was fined an animal.

I am sure you have heard people complaining that the police run all
these speed cameras, not because they care about road safety, but
because they want to raise money to pay for the inflated salaries of the
chief constables. If the "fine" simply passed into the possession of the
priest, there would be the suspicion that it had been imposed simply to
enrich the priest himself. By burning the animal as a sacrifice, it was
given to God (smoke goes up!); the offender was fined, the priest was
not enriched, everything was fine.

> If the lamb/goat/bull willingly came and laid down it's life I would
> agree with you. If someone else simply grabbed it and killed it, I think
> it's a stretch....

No doubt true - but I still think it was the animal which paid the
ultimate price ...

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-08-28, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 28/08/2021 19:28, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> To be fair, the Temple was destroyed by the Roman occupying forces.
>
> I'm not sure what you intend to convey by that remark. Who-ever

Just that outsiders did it to them by force...

> destroyed the temple, it was done with the sanction of God and signified
> that the temple was no longer important to Him. It is not without
> significance that the temple has never been rebuilt (and doesn't look
> likely to be rebuilt).

..but I suspected you might say they were asking for it.


--
Thinking about her this morning, lying in bed, and trying to get my
thoughts on the right track, I reached into the drawer of the bedstand,
and found the Gideons' Bible, and I was going for the Psalms, friend, honest
I was, but I found the Song of Solomon instead. --- Garrison Keillor

[Jason]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 20:13:51 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 31/08/2021 12:14, Jason wrote:
>
>> It's not the quantity of animals involved, it's the necessity of this
>> particular use.
>
> There is another aspect to things. Ancient Israel was a pastoral economy
> and wealth was measured by the number and quality of the cattle he
> possessed. (The Masai are a similar economy of today.) Today if someone
> offends he is fined a sum of money; in ancient times if someone offended
> he was fined an animal.
>
> I am sure you have heard people complaining that the police run all
> these speed cameras, not because they care about road safety, but
> because they want to raise money to pay for the inflated salaries of the
> chief constables. If the "fine" simply passed into the possession of the
> priest, there would be the suspicion that it had been imposed simply to
> enrich the priest himself. By burning the animal as a sacrifice, it was
> given to God (smoke goes up!); the offender was fined, the priest was
> not enriched, everything was fine.

That seems reasonable, it makes sense. I take your point about the
number of animals being reflected in wealth. Still, I'm not sure how you
would feel if your church stopped accepting cash donations (which could
after all be misused or misappropriated) and instead opt for burnt
offerings!!

>> If the lamb/goat/bull willingly came and laid down it's life I would
>> agree with you. If someone else simply grabbed it and killed it, I
>> think it's a stretch....
>
> No doubt true - but I still think it was the animal which paid the
> ultimate price ...

It surely did pay the ultimate price, though about as voluntarily as the
chicken I ate (in Korma form) last night.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/09/2021 14:12, Jason wrote:

> That seems reasonable, it makes sense. I take your point about the
> number of animals being reflected in wealth. Still, I'm not sure how you
> would feel if your church stopped accepting cash donations (which could
> after all be misused or misappropriated) and instead opt for burnt
> offerings!!

Fortunately the offerings we give in church are not linked to our sins.
(Not sure about the Catholics, mind ...)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/09/2021 11:16, Adam Funk wrote:

> ..but I suspected you might say they were asking for it.

Me and Josephus both.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/09/2021 14:12, Jason wrote:

> That seems reasonable, it makes sense. I take your point about the
> number of animals being reflected in wealth.

Incidentally, if you read Leviticus, you find that the value of the
offering depended on the social status and the religious responsibility
of the sinner. Your ordinary sinner-in-the-street might get away with a
lamb, but a priest or the king was mulcted in a bull!

Also notice that it was usually a female sheep or goat - no sacrificing
unwanted males (Oh, we've got more bull calves than we know what to do
with, so let's go out and sin a bit on the cheap.)

[steve hague]

So what could you get away with for a squirrel?

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 10:31:28 +0100, steve hague <steveh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 01/09/2021 21:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>>
>> Also notice that it was usually a female sheep or goat - no sacrificing
>> unwanted males (Oh, we've got more bull calves than we know what to do
>> with, so let's go out and sin a bit on the cheap.)
>>

>So what could you get away with for a squirrel?

A quick kick in the nuts!

Mark

[Mike Davis]

That's enough, Kendall! ;-)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/09/2021 10:31, steve hague wrote:

> So what could you get away with for a squirrel?

Nothing. Squirrels don't have cloven hooves, nor do they chew the cud.

[steve hague]

Sounds a bit indulgent to me 😊.

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-09-01, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 01/09/2021 11:16, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> ..but I suspected you might say they were asking for it.
>
> Me and Josephus both.

He was working for the Romans by that time, though, so not necessarily
unbiased.


--
Some say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults.
[XKCD 312]

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/09/2021 12:54, Adam Funk wrote:

> He was working for the Romans by that time, though, so not necessarily
> unbiased.

That is often claimed and certainly he was eager to please his patron,
Titus. However that does not prove that any of his statements are false.
They may be partial - ie. not the whole truth - but still true.