Thank you, Carmen. When I taught the Decalogue to undergraduates and Masters students, I called them 'Freedom Rules'. I totally agree that context is paramount. These are re-humanising words, and I demonstrated how each command addresses the dehumanising if Israel in slavery. As the property of Pharoah and his minions, the Israelites were chattel without any rights or protection, without possession, family or relational security. Thus, if Pharoah or his representative wanted to take a wife, a mother, a son or daughter, they could do as they please. Likewise, if they wanted an Israelite's personal possession, animal or property, they could take what they wanted. As slaves, there was no Sabbath, no rest and no dignity. The Decalogue restores all these to the people of God. First and foremost, it restores the sanctity and unity of faith in the One True God.
For many years I thought the 10 commandments applied to all nations inspired by the letter of Romans in the New Testament. But this thought changed a time ago and I read it in the book Bearing the Name of God in Spanish, Thanks for your help.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD which ever you feel led to writing. Your presentations are always easy to understand with vivid descriptions. I believe others can benefit from your teachings as I do. Thanks again for your dedication to your teachings.
Dr. Imes, I've heard you say before that when it was written the Torah was not seen as legislation but rather some form of Ancient Near Eastern "law code". Could you explain what exactly this means?
Yes, "law code" is not a great word for it because we hear that phrase legislatively, which means that particular prohibitions are appealed to by judges with prescribed penalties. In the ancient Near East, law collections were a way of demonstrating the wisdom of the ruler, who had thought of all the necessary parameters to have a healthy society. The "laws" would have been studied and used to think wisely about life, but not applied in a fixed way in a judicial context. So they still carry authority, but not the same type of authority/practice as modern law.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD I'm having some trouble understanding this interpretation of the Torah, it seems that God *does* want the Israelites to apply these laws in a fixed way e.g. immediately ordering the stoning of a man who broke Sabbath in Num 32.
Walter Kaiser in the New Interpreter's Bible Commentary (vol 1 page 619) for Leviticus 19:1-37 addressed that all ten of the "commandments" are illustrated in chapter 19. Do you agree with this and how does the differing numbering of the ten commandments effect this? FYI, if I were a student in your Leviticus class, I would be asking this or a similar question,
We certainly see echoes of the Decalogue in Leviticus 19, but I wouldn't say all ten are there.
Місяць тому
Thanks again. Just a little correction, as a French I was surprised that you said that Jan Milíč Lochman was French because I never heard of him. He's actually Czech and lived in Switzerland. Ha seems to be an interesting figure !
Good question. Verse 2 is technically the preamble, because a preamble is designed to rehearse the history of the two parties' dealings with one another.
Well done, although you have made clear the localized context of the Decalogue in Exodus & Deuteronomy (yes), we do see some universalizing tendencies happening later --In addition to many allusions in the exilic & restoration prophets, the parallels between Paul’s Ethics and the Decalogue (Exod 20:4-17; Deut 5:6-21) are extensive in Ephesians (4:28; 6:2), Romans (7:7; 13:9), includes a sizable Gentile audience. See further parallels with the Decalogue & other NT writings in James 2:11; Rev 9:21, & especially Jesus in the Gospels: Matt 4:10; 5:27; 12:2; 15:4, 19; 19:18-19; Mark 5:21; 7:10; 10:19; Luke 13:14; 18:20 (including reinterpretations). If we include the NT as "our Bible," we do find universalizing intent for Jewish & Gentile believers. Add also many Christian catechisms (e.g., Catholic, Luther’s, Westminster). Judaism retains this localized interpretation recommending for all Gentiles the Noahide laws.
Thanks for your thoughts, Charles. Instead of pointing to a universalizing tendency in the NT, would it be fair to say instead that the NT sees believing Gentiles as incorporated into the covenant people so that the particular covenant stipulations now apply to them? This is what 1 Peter 2:9-10 seems to say.
Carmen, yes, that is a noteworthy point: "believing Gentiles as incorporated into the covenant people so that the particular covenant stipulations now apply to them?" I am also reminded of : "The law is God’s inspired Word for you but it is not always God’s direct command to you (only if specified so in the New Testament)." -- G. D. Fee & D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Zondervan, 2014), 169-74. The Noahide laws? Perhaps those are for people outside of "Israel" (interpreted differently by Jews and Christians).
What are your thoughts regarding Galatians 3:16-17? The covenant that God made with Abraham 430 years before the law was given... here, it is claimed that the law was very specifically given to the Israelites. Yet, as gentiles, our inclusion with Christ is through the covenant made with Abraham... before any commandment was made to the Israelites. Christ definitely expounds further on some of these 10 matters or instructions in the NT in His sermon on the mount. Yet, I believe it's in Galatians 3 that we are able to distinguish that the 10 commandments were very specifically instructed to the Israelites... actually, all of the 613 laws to be exact.
You cannot use historical context as a means to discard what you do not want to obey, nor can you dismiss something that is clearly stated as a law, by relabeling with the more general term “words”. Wives, starting with the very first one, was property, and that has never changed. We can talk further about a wife’s rights and protections, but they are the property of their husband, just as the Church is bought and owned by her husband!
My translation of the Hebrew is by no means an attempt to "discard what I do not want to obey." If that's what you think this is, you don't know me very well.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD then why do you not cover your hair? Be an example to all your Christian sisters, and become Sarah’s daughter. 1st Cor 11.6 & 1st Pe 3.6 By the way, if you do cover your hair, why not a hijab out of protest to that murderous mess in the Middle East. Just give it a try! It can do no harm in the sight of our heavenly Father, only good! I’m sure there are some Muslims working near you who would be so delighted to show you how to wear a hijab.
An attempt to remove equivocation with the words head, hair, covering, and remove confusion in first Corinthians 11 “I praise you because you always remember me and follow the teachings that I have handed on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ. So a man who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with his skull covered disgraces Christ. And any woman who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with nothing on her skull disgraces her husband; there is no difference between her and a woman whose head hair has been shaved. If the woman does not cover her hair, she might as well shave clean her head hair. And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave clean her head hair or cut her hair like a man should, she should cover her skull cap. A man has no need to cover his skull cap, because he reflects the image and glory of God. But woman reflects the glory of man; for man was not created from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for woman's sake, but woman was created for man's sake. On account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering over her skull cap to show that she is under her husband's authority. In our life in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman was made from man, in the same way man is born of woman; and it is God who brings everything into existence. Judge for yourselves whether it is proper for a woman to pray to God in public worship with nothing on her skull cap. Why, nature itself teaches you that long hair on a man is a disgrace, but on a woman it is a thing of beauty. Her long hair has been given her to serve as a sexually appealing hood for her husband. But if anyone wants to argue about it, all I have to say is that neither we nor the churches of God have any other custom in worship.” (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) I changed a few words from the GNB’s very straight forward rendering to make it as clear as possible.
Freedom was a prerequisite for them to serve a new master
Yes!
Thank you, Carmen. When I taught the Decalogue to undergraduates and Masters students, I called them 'Freedom Rules'. I totally agree that context is paramount. These are re-humanising words, and I demonstrated how each command addresses the dehumanising if Israel in slavery. As the property of Pharoah and his minions, the Israelites were chattel without any rights or protection, without possession, family or relational security. Thus, if Pharoah or his representative wanted to take a wife, a mother, a son or daughter, they could do as they please. Likewise, if they wanted an Israelite's personal possession, animal or property, they could take what they wanted. As slaves, there was no Sabbath, no rest and no dignity. The Decalogue restores all these to the people of God. First and foremost, it restores the sanctity and unity of faith in the One True God.
Amen!
I like the "spoke" echo of creations ordering
Excellent Carmen
Glad you liked it, Sharon!
For many years I thought the 10 commandments applied to all nations inspired by the letter of Romans in the New Testament. But this thought changed a time ago and I read it in the book Bearing the Name of God in Spanish, Thanks for your help.
Glad this was helpful!
Loved the way you presented this topic. Ever thought of writing a detailed book of the Commandments? 🤔🤔🤔
You mean like a dissertation? Or a commentary on Exodus? yes and yes!
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD which ever you feel led to writing. Your presentations are always easy to understand with vivid descriptions. I believe others can benefit from your teachings as I do.
Thanks again for your dedication to your teachings.
Two very important points that you made about being after Egypt and protective. So much misconception surrounding these as you enumerated.
Thanks, Quentin!
Dr. Imes, I've heard you say before that when it was written the Torah was not seen as legislation but rather some form of Ancient Near Eastern "law code". Could you explain what exactly this means?
Yes, "law code" is not a great word for it because we hear that phrase legislatively, which means that particular prohibitions are appealed to by judges with prescribed penalties. In the ancient Near East, law collections were a way of demonstrating the wisdom of the ruler, who had thought of all the necessary parameters to have a healthy society. The "laws" would have been studied and used to think wisely about life, but not applied in a fixed way in a judicial context. So they still carry authority, but not the same type of authority/practice as modern law.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD I'm having some trouble understanding this interpretation of the Torah, it seems that God *does* want the Israelites to apply these laws in a fixed way e.g. immediately ordering the stoning of a man who broke Sabbath in Num 32.
Walter Kaiser in the New Interpreter's Bible Commentary (vol 1 page 619) for Leviticus 19:1-37 addressed that all ten of the "commandments" are illustrated in chapter 19. Do you agree with this and how does the differing numbering of the ten commandments effect this? FYI, if I were a student in your Leviticus class, I would be asking this or a similar question,
We certainly see echoes of the Decalogue in Leviticus 19, but I wouldn't say all ten are there.
Thanks again. Just a little correction, as a French I was surprised that you said that Jan Milíč Lochman was French because I never heard of him. He's actually Czech and lived in Switzerland. Ha seems to be an interesting figure !
Oh, wow! Thanks for that correction!
So the 10 Commandments are sort of a preamble or the full constitution conceptually?
Good question. Verse 2 is technically the preamble, because a preamble is designed to rehearse the history of the two parties' dealings with one another.
The words and not commands. Hmmm interesting to think about
Well done, although you have made clear the localized context of the Decalogue in Exodus & Deuteronomy (yes), we do see some universalizing tendencies happening later --In addition to many allusions in the exilic & restoration prophets, the parallels between Paul’s Ethics and the Decalogue (Exod 20:4-17; Deut 5:6-21) are extensive in Ephesians (4:28; 6:2), Romans (7:7; 13:9), includes a sizable Gentile audience. See further parallels with the Decalogue & other NT writings in James 2:11; Rev 9:21, & especially Jesus in the Gospels: Matt 4:10; 5:27; 12:2; 15:4, 19; 19:18-19; Mark 5:21; 7:10; 10:19; Luke 13:14; 18:20 (including reinterpretations). If we include the NT as "our Bible," we do find universalizing intent for Jewish & Gentile believers. Add also many Christian catechisms (e.g., Catholic, Luther’s, Westminster). Judaism retains this localized interpretation recommending for all Gentiles the Noahide laws.
Thanks for your thoughts, Charles. Instead of pointing to a universalizing tendency in the NT, would it be fair to say instead that the NT sees believing Gentiles as incorporated into the covenant people so that the particular covenant stipulations now apply to them? This is what 1 Peter 2:9-10 seems to say.
Carmen, yes, that is a noteworthy point: "believing Gentiles as incorporated into the covenant people so that the particular covenant stipulations now apply to them?" I am also reminded of : "The law is God’s inspired Word for you but it is not always God’s direct command to you (only if specified so in the New Testament)." -- G. D. Fee & D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Zondervan, 2014), 169-74. The Noahide laws? Perhaps those are for people outside of "Israel" (interpreted differently by Jews and Christians).
What are your thoughts regarding Galatians 3:16-17? The covenant that God made with Abraham 430 years before the law was given... here, it is claimed that the law was very specifically given to the Israelites. Yet, as gentiles, our inclusion with Christ is through the covenant made with Abraham... before any commandment was made to the Israelites. Christ definitely expounds further on some of these 10 matters or instructions in the NT in His sermon on the mount. Yet, I believe it's in Galatians 3 that we are able to distinguish that the 10 commandments were very specifically instructed to the Israelites... actually, all of the 613 laws to be exact.
You cannot use historical context as a means to discard what you do not want to obey, nor can you dismiss something that is clearly stated as a law, by relabeling with the more general term “words”. Wives, starting with the very first one, was property, and that has never changed. We can talk further about a wife’s rights and protections, but they are the property of their husband, just as the Church is bought and owned by her husband!
My translation of the Hebrew is by no means an attempt to "discard what I do not want to obey." If that's what you think this is, you don't know me very well.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD then why do you not cover your hair? Be an example to all your Christian sisters, and become Sarah’s daughter. 1st Cor 11.6 & 1st Pe 3.6
By the way, if you do cover your hair, why not a hijab out of protest to that murderous mess in the Middle East. Just give it a try! It can do no harm in the sight of our heavenly Father, only good! I’m sure there are some Muslims working near you who would be so delighted to show you how to wear a hijab.
An attempt to remove equivocation with the words head, hair, covering, and remove confusion in first Corinthians 11
“I praise you because you always remember me and follow the teachings that I have handed on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ. So a man who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with his skull covered disgraces Christ. And any woman who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with nothing on her skull disgraces her husband; there is no difference between her and a woman whose head hair has been shaved. If the woman does not cover her hair, she might as well shave clean her head hair. And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave clean her head hair or cut her hair like a man should, she should cover her skull cap. A man has no need to cover his skull cap, because he reflects the image and glory of God. But woman reflects the glory of man; for man was not created from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for woman's sake, but woman was created for man's sake. On account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering over her skull cap to show that she is under her husband's authority. In our life in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman was made from man, in the same way man is born of woman; and it is God who brings everything into existence. Judge for yourselves whether it is proper for a woman to pray to God in public worship with nothing on her skull cap. Why, nature itself teaches you that long hair on a man is a disgrace, but on a woman it is a thing of beauty. Her long hair has been given her to serve as a sexually appealing hood for her husband. But if anyone wants to argue about it, all I have to say is that neither we nor the churches of God have any other custom in worship.” (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)
I changed a few words from the GNB’s very straight forward rendering to make it as clear as possible.