That impression of yours is the right literal understanding of “political” but I suspect that you have reached it for entirely the wrong reasons. Re-read the synoptic gospels, in the light of the Torah and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The man thought that he was the king of the Jews by grace of God. Morality wasn’t “political” for him – it was royal and divine. If Jesus did have the powers he thought he’d had, the world would have fallen immediately under a shari`a more perfect than anything an ayatollah could dream up.
Homosexuals wouldn’t have been burned or stoned. They would have been exiled straight into Hell. That was the mindset of a first-century apocalyptic Jew.
Simon
I was thinking more along the lines of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
Some one told me that that episode is no longer part of he gospels.
I seem to remember reading (in something written by a guy named Augustine) that the story you refer to was sometimes excluded from early versions of the Gospel according to John.
Augustine commented that some people confused the point of the story with an teaching that allowed adultery.
Most modern translations I’ve seen have that section bracketed, and provide a footnote that the section was nonexistent in some versions of the Gospel.
Anyway, I’ve often seen that story explained as Jesus teaching morality, teaching forgiveness, and avoiding the potential trouble of being seen by the Romans as supporting a rival government/court system that could mete out punishment.
This last point may fit your observation about morality and politics.
Out of curiosity, what brought up this observation?
Simon
The anti-abortion Party just lost another election.
I keep advising them that they should stick to economics. They don’t listen to me. I was hoping to add weight to my argument by pointing out that a higher authority pointed in a different direction.
But I’m Jewish and abortion was never a “Class I Felony” in our religion. Also more weight is given to the health of the mother (even the mental health takes precedence – in fact if competent authorities determine that her mental health is at stake then abortion is REQUIRED).
cjcarnaghan
That story was in Matthew when I last read it. I think it has more to do with a double standard–woman gets stoned, man gets a free pass–than strict morality.
There are a number of stories Jesus used for examples that include free market sentiments. In one the property owner tells his disgruntled employees he can do what he wants with his own money.
And as I recall, Israel split apart after Solomon’s death becaused his son decided to raise taxes on the rich. There’s a modern day lesson for us.
Simon
cj,
And then there was Saul waring that having a King was a bad idea. Taxes would be going up.
Comments
6 responses to “ReThinking Morality”
That impression of yours is the right literal understanding of “political” but I suspect that you have reached it for entirely the wrong reasons. Re-read the synoptic gospels, in the light of the Torah and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The man thought that he was the king of the Jews by grace of God. Morality wasn’t “political” for him – it was royal and divine. If Jesus did have the powers he thought he’d had, the world would have fallen immediately under a shari`a more perfect than anything an ayatollah could dream up.
Homosexuals wouldn’t have been burned or stoned. They would have been exiled straight into Hell. That was the mindset of a first-century apocalyptic Jew.
I was thinking more along the lines of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
Some one told me that that episode is no longer part of he gospels.
@Simon,
I seem to remember reading (in something written by a guy named Augustine) that the story you refer to was sometimes excluded from early versions of the Gospel according to John.
Augustine commented that some people confused the point of the story with an teaching that allowed adultery.
Most modern translations I’ve seen have that section bracketed, and provide a footnote that the section was nonexistent in some versions of the Gospel.
Anyway, I’ve often seen that story explained as Jesus teaching morality, teaching forgiveness, and avoiding the potential trouble of being seen by the Romans as supporting a rival government/court system that could mete out punishment.
This last point may fit your observation about morality and politics.
Out of curiosity, what brought up this observation?
The anti-abortion Party just lost another election.
I keep advising them that they should stick to economics. They don’t listen to me. I was hoping to add weight to my argument by pointing out that a higher authority pointed in a different direction.
But I’m Jewish and abortion was never a “Class I Felony” in our religion. Also more weight is given to the health of the mother (even the mental health takes precedence – in fact if competent authorities determine that her mental health is at stake then abortion is REQUIRED).
That story was in Matthew when I last read it. I think it has more to do with a double standard–woman gets stoned, man gets a free pass–than strict morality.
There are a number of stories Jesus used for examples that include free market sentiments. In one the property owner tells his disgruntled employees he can do what he wants with his own money.
And as I recall, Israel split apart after Solomon’s death becaused his son decided to raise taxes on the rich. There’s a modern day lesson for us.
cj,
And then there was Saul waring that having a King was a bad idea. Taxes would be going up.