t
In the Christian understanding of salvation God sent His Son to be born into the human race, to live a perfect life and then die on the cross as a sacrifice in expiation for the sins of all humanity. His sacrifice, Christians believe, was foretold by the slaying of lambs and other animals in the tabernacle services. Each morning and each evening a lamb was killed on the altar of burnt offerings. In the springtime at the Passover celebration, the Passover lamb was killed. The Hebrew word for Passover is Pesach, from which Christians derive the word, “Paschal,” seeing Jesus as the Paschal lamb the blood of which daubed on the doorways of the Jews in Egypt saved them from the angel of death who came to kill all of the firstborn sons of the Egyptians, a divine show of force to convince the Pharaoh to let God’s people go out of slavery and into the Land promised to them by God. Jews who could, in Jesus’ time, would go to Jerusalem to sacrifice a lamb in the temple and to consume with the Passover meal. The Synoptics set the Last Supper as a Passover meal and this as the reason Jesus went into Jerusalem: to celebrate there the Passover and consume the Pesach/Paschal lamb.
John the Baptist as a Jew understood this symbolism. When He saw Jesus passing by he said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" Paul understood the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ similarly, for he said, "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed."
BUT DOES GOD’S WILL CHANGE?
By
Anthony E. Gallo
Dare we ask? Should
we ask? Or has God’s mind already
changed and we missed out?
Here we might tread lightly.
We remember the Biblical warning that God’s ways are not our ways and
our ways are not God’s Ways. We
acknowledge the Jewish adage that our arms are too short to box with God. And we all know the story of the Tower of Babel when men got too smart for its
britches and its tower came falling down.
However, is it time to assess within the Jewish-Christian dialogue? All religions, even atheism and agnosticism,
want to do the right thing, to foster morality and social responsibility. While persons of faith want to do the right
thing pursuing the will of God, atheists and agnostics simply want to do the
right thing.
Western civilization’s cultural, political, and aesthetic
foundations are grounded to a great extent in the ancient Greek and Roman
cultures, the product of the Golden Age of Jewish, Christian and Muslim
dialogue in Spain,
the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
Our religious and ethical mores however are more clearly descended from
the Hebrew Scriptures, which represent over a millennium of the experience and
divinely inspired reflection of God’s People, the Jews.
Jesus’ teaching, epitomized in the New Testament in the Sermon on the
Mount, distills this ancient Jewish, biblical wisdom, and closely parallels the
moral vision not only of the Hebrew prophets but of Jewish rabbinic tradition
which reflected on the Scriptures and how to apply them in ever-changing times,
much in the way the Fathers of the Church developed the biblical tradition
which they held sacred.
American tradition holds to the separation of Church and
State and allows for the free exchange of all views, religious and
philosophical, in a pluralistic society.
Some would call this a secular state, but the reality is more nuanced. The
Bible, variously interpreted, is very much the underlying document upon which
our moral code is based. It continues to
be a major source of light on our understanding of justice and
righteousness. Our Founding Fathers, while reflecting the
Enlightenment, were deeply entrenched in the moral values of Judaism and Christianity.
Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges faith in a Supreme
God who created humankind. Those who
signed it believed that they were following the laws of God, the providence of
God, and the judgment of God even though, again, they acknowledged their own
diversity of interpretation. It was this
resolution, the celebration of diversity within an overall
union of national purpose, that set the American experiment apart from all
societies in human history which had preceded it. The French revolution, which did not begin
until 1789, the year our Constitution was ratified by the former American
colonies, sought to embody the same principle of unity within diversity, though
its road to eventual success proved to be more difficult and fraught with
internal violence and discord before it
achieved that goal.
While God is not mentioned in the US, Constitution, God is mentioned
today in the constitutions of nearly all of our fifty states, and all
territories mention God, sometimes as often at ten times. Every American President has taken his oath
of office on at least one Bible, and President Obama took his oath of office on
two Bibles, one belonging to Martin Luther King, Jr., and the other to Abraham
Lincoln, arguably the most biblically literate President in US History. Although Lincoln
joined no Church, he mentioned God at least three thousand times by one count
in his speeches, and made no secret of the fact that the Bible (along with the
works of William Shakespeare) was his favorite book. One cannot read his Second Inaugural Address,
probably the most significant in American history, without understanding its
biblical references, allusions with which his original audience was well aware,
since they were in the main steeped in the Scriptures themselves.
It cannot be denied therefore that the Bible is the foundation
of the understanding of truth and justice in Western civilization in general
and in the United States
in particular. But we also know that
this document has been used though the ages as a basis for justifying a wide
variety of points of view. We have relied on those who speak with authority,
knowledge about how to interpret biblical passages which sometimes they had,
and sometimes they merely asserted they had.
Many of the issues that divide society throughout the world are often
defended on the basis of the Bible. These include stances on gay/lesbian
marriage, polygamy, divorce, ordination of women, abortion, capitol punishment
and numerous others.
There are, as commonly understood, two main views of God’s
will. One is that God’s will is unbending
and unchanging. Another is that God’s
will changes over time. How do we reconcile those
passages which state that God does not
change, with others that seem to suggest that God’s will alters over time?
Jewish- Christian Theology is largely based on God speaking
to the human race through Scripture--the Bible, the human heart, prophets and
religious leaders. In Genesis, God
changes his mind about destroying the human race in the flood, promising, and
creating the rainbow as a sign of the divine promise, never to do so
again. God reconciles Himself to human
evil and sets about creating a special people, the children of Abraham and
Sarah, the Jews, to be a people especially dedicated to observing God’s teachings
and thereby be a witness to and a blessing for all of humanity.
Instead of presuming human goodness, God realizes that it
will take many generations of divine teaching, patience, justice and mercy to
raise this people to the level of faithfulness to the divine will that He
originally hoped humanity would attain from the beginning. God
allows Abraham to argue with him to save the righteous few in Sodom when He had originally planned to
destroy the whole city. And God, in one
of the most profound, and to this day still much discussed and variously
interpreted passages in the Bible, orders Abraham to sacrifice his son and
heir, Isaac, only to stay Abraham’s hand at the last moment. Was this God’s plan all along? Or did the willingness to suffer of Abraham
and Isaac move the divine heart so that God changed his mind about what he had
originally commanded Abraham to do?
Likewise, the commandments of the Law given by God to Moses
changed with time. The changes reflected
the differing circumstances of tribal societies, early farming settlements, and
more urban settings. One has only to
compare the earlier versions of the many commandments (the ten but many others
as well) in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers with those given in Deuteronomy
(literally, the Second Law) to see what amounts to an evolution of the divine
will and commandments from the earlier versions of the Law with the Pentateuch
to the later. Both rabbinic and
Christian commentators over the centuries have worked hard to reconcile these
different versions of the Law. Modern
biblical scholars would not that the essential moral and spiritual principles
remained the same but that specific laws changed to reflect the changing circumstances
of the people of God as the many centuries of human experience reflected in the
Bible passed, one into another over time.
Though the New
Testament was written over a much shorter period of time, approximately a
single century rather than a millennium, one can see such evolution of views in
it as well. The Epistle to the Hebrews,
written after the destruction of the Temple
in 70 CE, addresses the issue of how to observe the biblical commandments
without a temple within which to offer sacrifice. Its author argues that the sacrifice of Jesus
more than compensates for temple offerings.
In the same period, of course, Jewish tradition was developing its own
theory that study of the Bible, prayer and good works were sufficient
sacrifices to God, in this following and expanding on the biblical prophets
such as Amos. God, having in the past
spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, the
author of Hebrews argues, had something new to say through Jesus. He implies, with good biblical precedent, as
we have seen, that God’s will for humanity does change over time, as humanity
changes and, we would say, evolves.
Other examples from over the course of post biblical Jewish
and Christian history are not difficult to find. A few will be briefly mentioned here.
USURY
In the Middle Ages, Christians interpreted the biblical
commandment against lending money at exorbitant interest (which we would call
usury) to prohibit lending any money at interest. Various decrees first allowed it, and then
prohibited it.
In one period, both Jews and Christians interpreted the
biblical commandment against lending money at interest to one’s fellows as
meaning that Jews should not lend money to Jews and Christians not to
Christians. With this new
interpretation, both believed that they could lend money at interest to people
outside of their own community. In
Renaissance Italy, taking advantage of this, Jews and Christians worked
together to create the basis of the modern banking system. Changing times had brought new needs and
possibilities, and the one word of God was reinterpreted to fit them. Ultimately, the commandment was interpreted
yet again to prohibit lending money at high interest rates that would
impoverish the debtor, and the financial basis for modern capitalism was
established. Usury remained prohibited,
in accordance with the intent of the biblical law, but banking was allowed.
SLAVERY
Although not laden with race, the
entirely of the old and new testament are filled with examples of slavery. The
Hebrew Scriptures contain many laws which give slaves rights, among them the
Law of the Jubilee Year, in which all slaves were to be freed. Jesus of Nazareth took on the priestly establishment
with an action which would have been cheered on by the group in first century
Judaism with whom he was in closest contact, the Pharisees. Many of his teachings reflect and are
parallel to those of the two main Pharisaic schools of thought of his time, the
schools of Hillel and Shammai. Jesus
drove the money changers out of the Temple,
and the chief priests, as all three of the Synoptic gospels agree in virtually
the same language, began to plot against him.
Pontius Pilate, who controlled the priesthood entirely, having appointed
Caiaphas as his chief collaborator, saw in the popularity of Jesus with the
Jewish people a potential source of Jewish revolution against Roman rule, and
so executed him. Jesus boldly paid with
his life for probing interpretations of Jewish Law and for being one around
whom rebellious Jews might gather. He
would have supported the biblical laws which strove to make slavery relatively
humane. But he
did not condemn slavery. “That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make
preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely” (Luke
12:47). “No disciple is not above his teacher, no
slave above his master” (Matthew 10:24).
In addition, the Decalogue(ten commandments) could not be more explicit in its approval of
slavery. You shall not covet your
neighbors good, was followed by two more suggestions. Do not covet your neighbors cattle and do not covet your neighbor’s slaves. Which definitely infers that Israelites
could own slaves.
St Paul's epistles called for slaves to “obey their masters.” St Peter's letters appear to suggest that it
was commendable for Christian slaves to
suffer willingly at the hands of cruel masters In several Pauline epistles,
and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished
to obey their masters, as to the Lord,
and not to men; however masters were told to serve their
slaves "in the same way"
and "even better" as
"brothers” and not to threaten them as God is their Master as well. This
latter admonition reflects the Law of the Hebrew Scriptures in just treatment
of slaves.
The Epistle to Philemon was used by pro-slavery
advocates as well as by abolitionists. Paul
writes that he is returning Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master
Philemon; and entreats Philemon to regard him not as a slave but as a beloved brother in
Christ.
Jesus
of Nazareth took on the entirety of the Israel’s establishment, but did not
condemn slavery. Both Peter and Paul
likely were martyred for their evangelizing, but neither condemned
slavery. God’s will as expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures affirmed
the institution of slavery as it existed at the time. Regarding the emancipation of slaves, Jewish
slaves were to be freed in the seventh year, the Jubilee Year, reflecting in
years the seven day cycle of Creation in Genesis 1, when the Lord rested and
when all humanity must rest, according
to both Deuteronomy and Exodus. In
addition the Hebrew Scriptures
contain laws regarding punishment for the one who kills slave as well as
injunctions to avoid injuring the eyes and teeth.
Exodus Says”
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his
hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continues a day or
two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." And "And if a man smite the eye of his
servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for
his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's
tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." Leviticus prohibited enslavingover other
Israelites, but allowed for Gentile
slaves.
Sadly,
the Christians in American history used certain biblical passages to justify
the practice, and did observe the spirit of the biblical laws which saw slaves
as fully human and worthy of respect. Slavery,
though acknowledges as a valid societal norm in the bible, and regulated as
such, is however totally condemned today throughout the world and especially in
the Jewish and Christian tradition as a violation of God’s will, even though
sanctioned in their scriptures.
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
The
laws of marriage and divorce changed many times in the Bible. Moses provided for the possibility of a man
divorcing his wife, in certain circumstances.
It was not an easy matter, because in the Hebrew Scriptures, as in the
New Testament, marriage is a covenant, reflective of the unbreakable covenant
between God and the People of God. In
the centuries before Jesus there was a disagreement over how to interpret the
biblical Law in this regard. The School of Hillel was relatively lenient, giving
fairly wide reasons for divorce. The School of Shammai interpreted the Law more
strictly, rendering it next to impossible.
Jesus, when asked, sided with the
Pharisaic school
of Shammai in this
instance, and went a bit beyond even their strictness, making it next to
impossible. Many Christian and Jewish groups today allow
for divorce and remarriage. The Catholic
Church allows for divorce when the married couple cannot reasonably live
together, but does not allow for remarriage.
It views the covenant between man and wife as a symbol and sign of the
unbreakable covenant between God and the People of God. This would make remarriage technically
adultery, which is not condoned by any branch of Judaism or Christianity.
Polygamy
has its own history. Jewish tradition
has never banned polygamy outright, because it was practiced by the
Patriarchs. Technically, it has not been
banned outright, but banned “temporarily,” i.e. for the next millennium
(depending on the interpretation). Up
to the 1940’s some Jewish groups, such as the Jews of Yemen, continued to
practice polygamy. When they migrated to
the new Jewish state of Israel, its high court ruled that those who had brought
more than one wife could keep them, but marry no others, nor were their sons to
be allowed to marry more than one wife. On the Christian side, when the Mormons
accepted and encouraged polygamy they like the Jews had to look no further than
the biblical patriarchs and kings.
Abraham had plural wives, as did King David and King Solomon supposedly had
7000 wives. But by the time
of Jesus and earlier, reflected in the later strata of the bible, the ideal was
no longer polygamy but monogamy. The
Bible in Genesis says that God’s original intention was for one man to be
married to only one woman: “For this reason a man will leave his father and
mother and be united to his wife.” .
ANIMAL SACRIFICE:
The first record in
the Bible of animal sacrifices was at the gate of the Garden of Eden.” In the
course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to
the LORD. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.
The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his
offering he did not look with favor, suggests that this offering of sacrifices
was a recurring event. It is actually implied in Genesis 3:21 where it says,
"The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed
them." The clothing of skins with which God covered Adam and Eve presumably
came from animals that were killed.
Why did the Lord look with favor on Abel's sacrifice and did not look with favor on Cain's offering? It was because the sacrifice of "the firstborn of his flock" carried a symbolism certainly known and understood by both Cain and Abel. It was an acted out prophecy of a coming Savior who would give His life to save the human race.
Offerings of clean animals were offered by Noah after the flood when the ark came to rest on the top of Mt. Ararat Later Abraham built altars and offered sacrifices in the land of Canaan ( ).When Israel escaped from their slavery in Egypt, they came to Mt. Sinai. There God gave them instructions to build a tent tabernacle they would carry as a portable meeting place while they were on their way to the Promised Land of Canaan. This tent tabernacle and its services were designed to give Israel an object lesson of the plan of salvation God had put in place "before the creation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20.) Such stories reflect and provide a sacred history for the practice of animal sacrifice in the Temple of Jerusalem.
Why did the Lord look with favor on Abel's sacrifice and did not look with favor on Cain's offering? It was because the sacrifice of "the firstborn of his flock" carried a symbolism certainly known and understood by both Cain and Abel. It was an acted out prophecy of a coming Savior who would give His life to save the human race.
Offerings of clean animals were offered by Noah after the flood when the ark came to rest on the top of Mt. Ararat Later Abraham built altars and offered sacrifices in the land of Canaan ( ).When Israel escaped from their slavery in Egypt, they came to Mt. Sinai. There God gave them instructions to build a tent tabernacle they would carry as a portable meeting place while they were on their way to the Promised Land of Canaan. This tent tabernacle and its services were designed to give Israel an object lesson of the plan of salvation God had put in place "before the creation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20.) Such stories reflect and provide a sacred history for the practice of animal sacrifice in the Temple of Jerusalem.
In the Christian understanding of salvation God sent His Son to be born into the human race, to live a perfect life and then die on the cross as a sacrifice in expiation for the sins of all humanity. His sacrifice, Christians believe, was foretold by the slaying of lambs and other animals in the tabernacle services. Each morning and each evening a lamb was killed on the altar of burnt offerings. In the springtime at the Passover celebration, the Passover lamb was killed. The Hebrew word for Passover is Pesach, from which Christians derive the word, “Paschal,” seeing Jesus as the Paschal lamb the blood of which daubed on the doorways of the Jews in Egypt saved them from the angel of death who came to kill all of the firstborn sons of the Egyptians, a divine show of force to convince the Pharaoh to let God’s people go out of slavery and into the Land promised to them by God. Jews who could, in Jesus’ time, would go to Jerusalem to sacrifice a lamb in the temple and to consume with the Passover meal. The Synoptics set the Last Supper as a Passover meal and this as the reason Jesus went into Jerusalem: to celebrate there the Passover and consume the Pesach/Paschal lamb.
John the Baptist as a Jew understood this symbolism. When He saw Jesus passing by he said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" Paul understood the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ similarly, for he said, "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed."
When the Temple was destroyed
in 70 of the Common Era Christians, who according to the book of Acts continued
to offer sacrifices in the Temple
after the resurrection of Jesus, like Jews, no longer had a place in which to
offer the prescribed sacrifices.
Christians, as we saw, believe Jesus’ sacrifice more than compensates
for the inability to continue offering sacrifices in the Temple.
Rabbinic Judaism believes study of the law, prayer and good deeds
compensate, making the righteousness of one’s life a fitting sacrifice to the
God of Israel.
HOMOSEXUALITY
The Bible specifically prohibits homosexuality in a couple of places. However,
unlike adultery, which is included in the Ten Commandments,
homosexuality is no included int eh biblical summaries of the most serious
covenant-breaching sins. And
there are no stories about homosexuality parallel to those in which the sin of
adultery, for example David’s with Bathsheba, cause serious problems for the
People of Israel, incurring the righteous anger of the God of Israel.
St. Paul,
in a later time likely reflecs a growing
abhorrence of Greek and Roman practice with regard to sexual relations with
young boys, thoroughly condemned the practice.
The Romans and the Greeks did not
condemn homosexuality. Paul’s references
to homosexual acts were not particularly controversial to early Christians who
knew that the holiness code of Leviticus forbade homosexual acts (Leviticus
20:13). Paul was reaffirming that which was held by faithful Jews and early
Christians. We have no evidence that there was a movement afoot in Corinth to press for wider
acceptance of same-sex activity. Paul does not single out homosexuality but
refers to it within a list of other acts that were accepted as idolatrous but
were now to be left behind by those who had chosen Jesus. So, although Paul
might not be considered homophobic in the way we today would understand the
term, he was clearly against any form of homosexual activity.
Jesus of Nazareth did not condemn homosexuality. St.
Augustine was a practicing homosexual for a year and
likely had a lover, but turned vehemently against it.
Capital Punishment.
Leviticus 20:2–27 provides a list of
transgressions in which execution is recommended. Christian positions on these
passages vary. In the New Testament.
Jesus uses the example of those who killed the king’s son.. The king in turn
retaliated by killing the guests who did not attend the wedding feast. Indeed
Jesus Death and Resurrection would not have taken place because he would have
been sent to prison had there been no capital punishment. Rabbinic tradition, interpreting the biblical
laws for new times and with new insights, gradually made capital punishment harder
and harder to enforce, so that by the time the Talmud was set down, it was in
effect practically impossible. The
Jewish State of Israel, though it considers itself, understandably, as besieged
by enemies, has condemned only one person to death, making capital punishment,
while possible, in practice not a real option.
That person, of course, was the man in the glass booth, a chief
perpetrator of the Holocaust. Most
Christian countries of Europe today no longer
practice capital punishment. It is a strong
position of most Christian
Denominiations that capital punishment should be banned everywhere.
SINS OF THE FATHER
It seems to have been a practice in some parts of the
ancient world until a shift was indicated by Ezekiel. Once, God’s will seemed to indicate that the
sins of the fathers could be passed on to the children. While we notice parental traits being passed
from one generation to the next and in
family lines indeed, God speaking through Ezekiel, indicated that henceforth
each human would be judged on his own actions rather than those of his
father. What seems to have been
acceptable earlier in biblical times was no longer so after Ezekiel.
RETALIATION
The prophets, spokesmen for God evolved. God evolved from a God of power to a God of
love.
“But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for burn for burn, wound for
wound, stripe for stripe. Then you shall
do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil
from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear,
and shall never again commit any such evil among you. your eye shall not pity. It shall
be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
There are only three cases in which the lex talionis is referred to.
In each, it is meant to restrict people’s urge for vengeance to a more
just sense of retributive justice. In
context, the ancient saying, common in the societies around Israel, is appealed
to, but most scholars would agree was not to be taken literally, but rather
meant to show the seriousness of the matter at hand, as for example when two
men are fighting and they harm a pregnant woman. If the child within her survives, then there
is a monetary compensation for the harm done to her. If the child dies, then the matter is much
more serious, akin in fact to murder of the child, so a more severe punishment
is exacted. It is not however a literal
“eye for an eye,” of course, since neither of the men could be pregnant, so a
literal interpretation of the dictum would be impossible.
Jesus likewise uses the phrase more symbolically than
literally, to make a deeper point. “You
have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone
slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if
anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not
refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Repay
no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of
all.” Responding to evil with goodness
is attested in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Taken seriously, it would lead to a life of
what we would today call pacifism, as indeed many of the first Christians so
understood it. The early Christian
practice of non-violence, however, gave way to the theory of justifiable war
when Christianity gained power in the Roman Empire.
WINE
Drunkenness is
condemned but wine is extolled throughout the Bible. Alcoholic beverages appear in biblical literature, from Noah planting a vineyard
and becoming inebriated in the Hebrew Bible,
to Jesus
in the New Testament miraculously making copious
amounts of wine
at the marriage at
Cana and later incorporating wine as part of the Eucharist.
Wine is the most common alcoholic beverage mentioned in biblical literature,
where it is a source of symbolism, ]
and was an important part of daily life in biblical times. Additionally, the inhabitants of ancient
Israel drank beer, and wines made from fruits other than grapes, and
references to these appear in scripture
Biblical
literature displays ambivalence toward intoxicating drinks, considering them
both a blessing from God that brings joy and merriment and potentially
dangerous beverages that can be sinfully abused. The relationships between Judaism and
alcohol and Christianity and alcohol have generally
maintained this same tension, though Christianity saw a number of its
adherents, particularly around the time of Prohibition,
rejecting alcohol as evil. The original versions of the books of the Bible use
several different words for alcoholic beverages: at least in Hebrew, and
five in Greek. Drunkenness is discouraged and not
infrequently portrayed, and some biblical persons abstained from alcohol.
Alcohol is used symbolically, in both positive and negative terms. Its
consumption is prescribed for religious rites or medicinal uses in some places.
ABORTION
The Bible neither supports nor opposes abortion or birth
control. The issue arises as a serious one only with the advent of modern
medicine. Abortion is not mentioned as
such in the Bible.
CONCLUSIONS
The first is that God’s Law, its understanding and
application, changed and evolved over the course of time in which the
Scriptures were written, and that rabbinic and Christian traditions have
changed over the centuries as well as new questions have arisen and new
situations needed to be faced. Changing
specifics has often proven the best way of adhering to the substance and spirit
of a given law. Animal sacrifice, divorce, polygamy, and so on are just some
examples. The second is that people do
change their minds about what they think, often in response to changing scientific
knowledge or public demands. The Bible
is and will always remain a major source of justification and righteousness. But if we believe God's will is also written
in our hearts and enough people thinks so then perhaps we should reassess and
see where we go. In conclusion, we do not know but are simply beginning a discussion. And again we may revert to another source of
God’s knowledge. What God writes is in
our hearts (cf. Jeremiah 31). And we
can try more prayer and more dialogue.
I would like to acknowledge help from Dr. Eugene Fisher. . The opinions expressed are of course
entirely my own."
