participating with our thoughts and arguments of the rabbi jew dialogue with Jesus, we made their companions in the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem already well beyond the Sermon on the Mount, and now we must return again to the antithesis of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus takes up some issues in the second table of the Decalogue to ancient opposing provisions of a new radicalism of the Torah righteousness before God: not only kill, but to meet his brother with whom the dispute has to reconcile with him. No more divorces, not just equality in law (an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth), but leave without returning strike the blow not only to love our neighbor but also the enemy. The sublimity of the ethos that occurs here will continue to upset people of all backgrounds and impress them as the culmination of moral grandeur, just think of the sympathy for Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, who relied on these texts. But what is said is realistic? It must, indeed, it is legitimate to do so? Some details of what is said may not destroy - as Neusner argues - any concrete social order? You can build such a community, a people? The recent exegetical research, carefully examining the internal structure of the Torah and its legislation, has made major acquisitions on the subject. To our question is especially important analysis of the so-called Covenant Code in Exodus 20.22 to 23.19. In this code of laws can be distinguished two types of law: the so-called right casuistic and apodictic that. The casuistic law includes rules that regulate very specific questions: the legal provisions about the maintenance and the emancipation of slaves, about the injury at the hands of men or animals, some compensation in the event of theft and so on. There are no dates theological reasons, but set concrete sanctions, proportionate to the wrong done. These legal standards are developed by a law practice and reported to it. It is used to build a realistic social order, and is measured at the concrete possibilities of a society in a very specific historical and cultural situation. In this sense, it is also a conditional right historically, that is certainly open to criticism, sometimes - according to our ethical vision - in need of criticism. It, in the same Old Testament law was further developed: the most recent standards rules contradict the oldest on the same subject. The provisions of this kind, while being important in the context of faith in the detector Dao, who spoke on Sinai, they are not themselves immediately divine right, but that law has developed from the basic criterion of the divine right and then right susceptible for further development and bug fixes. In fact, a social order also includes the possibility of evolution is commensurate in different historical situations and orient to what is possible, without losing sight of the ethical criterion in itself, which gives law its character as law. The prophetic critique of Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah concerns in some respects - as shown, for example Olivier Artus - even the casuistic law, which is present in the Torah, but which in practice has become unjust and in concrete economic situations Israel is no longer needed to defend the poor, widows and orphans - a defense that the prophets have regard to the higher purpose of the legislation coming from God Related to this prophetic criticism, however, are parts of the code of the Alliance, which are qualified as' apodictic law "(Exodus 22:20; 23.9 to 12). This apodictic law ruled in the name of God, here we do not give concrete sanctions. "Do not vex a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in Egypt. Do not afflict any widow or orphan "(Exodus 22.20 s). In these great standards, criticism of the prophets have found a foothold, and from these rules has repeatedly questioned the concrete legal practices to enforce the essential core of the law as a no-dividend policy and guidance for each line development of law and all social organization. Frank Crèsemann, to which we have basic knowledge in this area, described the provisions apodictic law as a 'meta', which represent an instance of criticism of the rule of law casuistic. The relationship between law casuistic and apodictic law - mann - could be called the torque concept of "rules" and "principles".
J. Ratzinger - Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth , pp. 151-156
There are thus, in the same Torah, very different levels of authority, there is in it - in the words of Artus - a continuous dialogue between rules and meta-conditioned by history. These express-Emona what is asked constantly by the Alliance. The fundamental option of meta is the guarantee offered by God to the poor who are easily deprived of their rights and can not take the law into their own. To this is linked to another aspect: the Torah is primarily a basic rule, from which only depends on all the affirmation of faith in God, He alone YHWH, can be adored. But then, during the development of prophecy, the responsibility for the poor, widows and orphans gradually assume the same status as the exclusive worship of God merges with the image of God, defines it in a very concrete way. The guide is a guide to social and theological theological guidance of a social character - love for God and love of neighbor can not be separated, and the love of neighbor gets here, as the perception of the direct presence of God in the poor and weak, a very practical definition.
This is essential for the proper understanding of the Sermon on the Mount. Within the Torah itself and then in the dialogue between the Law and the Prophets we can already see the contrast between casuistic law changing, which in turn shape the social structure, and basic principles of divine law itself, against which we must continuously measure to develop standards and correct practices. Jesus does nothing outrageous or new casuistry when contrasted with the rules, practices, develop-pate in the Torah, the pure will of God as the "greater righteousness" (Mt 5:20) that can be expected from the children of God He incorporates the dynamism inherent the Torah itself, and further developed by the prophets, as the Chosen One, as the prophet that God himself is "face to face" (Dt 18:15), gives its radical form. So we understand that with these words by itself is not formulated unordinamento social surely, however, is prefixed to the social arrangements that the basic criteria, however, as these can not be fully realized in any social order. The dynamism of the legal and social real Jesus performed, their extrapolation from the immediate context of God and the entrustment of responsibility to a capable of discerning right now, corresponds to the intrinsic structure of the Torah itself. In contrast the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stands before us not as a rebel nor a liberal, but as the prophetic interpreter of the Torah that He does not abolish but to fulfill - to an end at the door indicating the reason for acting in the history of space his responsibility. So even the Christian must continually revise and recast the social order - a "Christian social doctrine." In the face of new developments in Christianity will correct what had been previously established. The intrinsic structure of the Torah, in its evolution through the critical and prophetic message of Jesus, which incorporates both, it is necessary to set the width and the historical developments stable base that ensures the dignity of man from the dignity of God
This is essential for the proper understanding of the Sermon on the Mount. Within the Torah itself and then in the dialogue between the Law and the Prophets we can already see the contrast between casuistic law changing, which in turn shape the social structure, and basic principles of divine law itself, against which we must continuously measure to develop standards and correct practices. Jesus does nothing outrageous or new casuistry when contrasted with the rules, practices, develop-pate in the Torah, the pure will of God as the "greater righteousness" (Mt 5:20) that can be expected from the children of God He incorporates the dynamism inherent the Torah itself, and further developed by the prophets, as the Chosen One, as the prophet that God himself is "face to face" (Dt 18:15), gives its radical form. So we understand that with these words by itself is not formulated unordinamento social surely, however, is prefixed to the social arrangements that the basic criteria, however, as these can not be fully realized in any social order. The dynamism of the legal and social real Jesus performed, their extrapolation from the immediate context of God and the entrustment of responsibility to a capable of discerning right now, corresponds to the intrinsic structure of the Torah itself. In contrast the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stands before us not as a rebel nor a liberal, but as the prophetic interpreter of the Torah that He does not abolish but to fulfill - to an end at the door indicating the reason for acting in the history of space his responsibility. So even the Christian must continually revise and recast the social order - a "Christian social doctrine." In the face of new developments in Christianity will correct what had been previously established. The intrinsic structure of the Torah, in its evolution through the critical and prophetic message of Jesus, which incorporates both, it is necessary to set the width and the historical developments stable base that ensures the dignity of man from the dignity of God
J. Ratzinger - Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth , pp. 151-156
0 comments:
Post a Comment