The Divine Mandates - Morris A. Inch

Скачать книгу

blasphemy. “Are you still holding on to your integrity?” Job’s wife incredulously inquired of him. “Curse God and die!” (Job 2:9)

      “You are talking like a foolish woman,” the patriarch replied. “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” Soliciting the commendation, “In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.”

      Such is vengeance among humans. The situation differs concerning God. Whereas humans cannot physically assault the Almighty, let alone kill him; they can only express their hostility. Consequently, blasphemy is viewed with the intent to hurt God, even to erase his existence.

      Blasphemy expresses itself most vividly when humans attribute evil to God . Recalling the faulty reason of an acquaintance, who protested: “If God gave me a mind, and I conclude that he does not exist, he is at fault.” Not unlike Adam, who excused his transgression with the observation: “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it (Gen. 3:12).

      In more subtle fashion, blasphemy was thought involved whenever one fails to give God the recognition due him. Whether this pertains to his sovereign authority, or his benevolent design. Consequently, by challenging the assertion that God is good, and does good.

      Concerning murder. In this connection, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (Gen 9:6). Not only is murder a disregard for the sanctity of life, but an affront to God—in whose image man is created.

      Or should a person leave someone to starve, it was said to constitute murder. Assuming that he has available means or could secure it to save the person’s life. Again, emphasizing the culpability of sins of omission.

      If death occurred unintentionally, the perpetrator was to be provided security. Since retaliation might be expected. Bringing to mind the sage counsel, “Two wrongs do not made a right.”

      Concerning theft. Of all the commandments, the prohibition against theft was thought the most difficult to obey. Largely because one is inclined to further his or her own interests at the expense of others. And then to justify the abhorrent behavior in some acceptable manner.

      One was liable to punishment whether he or she brazenly robs in public, or sneaks into a house under the cover of darkness. Regardless from whim one steals, or the amount taken. As when failing to provide a reasonable wage. Whether deliberately or not recognizing the implications.

      In Talmudic times, a fair amount of profit was thought to be one-sixth. However, it was allowed that the percentage would have to be adjusted occasionally, while weighing in the contributing factors. Falling prey to man’s predatory nature.

      The prohibition against theft was best served by not coveting that which belongs to another. Instead, rejoice in his good fortune. And seek to emulate his industry, while being generous to a fault.

      Sexual purity was to be maintained in this context. As a commitment, for better and for worse. Until life’s termination. Not begrudgingly but with hearty approval, as unto the Lord.

      Divorce, although discouraged, was allowed in more exceptional instances. Resulting in a wide range of application. In some instances, restricted to adultery and in others for less compelling reasons.

      It was thought that those involved in illicit sex would eventually come to realize the folly of their behavior, and complain against those who encouraged them. Once they realize the risks involved, and its meager compensation.

      Such as violated by the crowded condition to which animals are subject. Moreover, the crude slaughtering procedures so often employed. Not only with concern for the animals, but its adverse effect on the humans involved.

      By way of extension, showing consideration for all forms of life. The beasts of the field, the birds overhead, and the foliage surrounding us. As a good steward of God’s creation, rather than a ravaging plague.

      Concerning courts of law. Such as further the cause of justice, and cultivate moral behavior. As a deterrent to evil, and a means of cultivating a healthy society. As a task of prime importance, to be zealously pursued.

      Worthy of note, the lex talionis (an eye for an eye) was meant to discourage extreme forms of punishment. Conversely, it allowed for extenuating circumstances. By which justice is served.

      The provision for courts of law allowed for variety. Providing this was deemed in keeping with basic moral principles. So that while what constituted modesty might legitimately differ from one culture to the next, a concern for modest behavior ought to prevail regardless of cultural distinctive.

      There were many factors to bear in mind. For instance, the judge should not assume the merits of the case on the basis of the good or bad reputation of one of the litigants. Since either or both might be at fault.

      Nor should the judge unnecessarily delay the proceedings, by lengthening the time of testimony or cross-examination. Such as calculated to increase the distress of those implicated. While serving no legitimate purpose.

      Thus have we explored the realm of divine mandates. First concerning the Mosaic Covenant and then God’s covenant with Noah. As for the former, said to set forth 613 regulations, but reduced to 7 in the latter instance. Although the latter are for the most part more general, and thought to be roughly equivalent. While focusing our attention on man’s relationship to the Sovereign Lord, and life together.