Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Could you define it?  I've never heard of it!
    
    Thanks,
    
    -Jack

|Without some knowledge of the cultural infrastructure, Scripture loses
|a measure of its context.
    
    I've been saying this for years and people just stare at me like I have
    lost my marbles.  Christians lose 25-33% of the proper perspective by
    not investigating Christianity's roots (i.e., Judaism).

    .2
    
    Ah!  Something on which we a share a similar viewpoint. :-)
    
    Do you have the particulars on levirate law by any chance?
    
    Broadly, it has to do with a man's duty to marry his brother's widow.
    
    Richard
    

    OH PLEASE BILL DON'T DIE!!!! :-)

    {Zondervan's Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 3, p. 912}
    
    A law of Moses which states that if 2 brothers live together, and one
    of them dies without leaving a male heir, his brother shall marry his
    widow, and the first son of the union shall take the name of the
    brother who died.  If the brother refuses to marry the widow, she shall
    bring him before the elders of the city, and in their presence remove a
    sandal from his foot and spit in his face.  The purpose of the law
    obviously was to provide an heir for the dead brother (Deuteronomy
    25:5-10).

    Shower me People!!!! :-)

.5

>    bring him before the elders of the city, and in their presence remove a
>    sandal from his foot and spit in his face.  The purpose of the law
>    obviously was to provide an heir for the dead brother (Deuteronomy
>    25:5-10).

I'll bite.  What's the significance of removing a sandal from the man's foot?
Does spitting in the face roughly mean then what it means now (ie, "You're
dirt and I spit on you!")?

Richard

.6

>    Shower me People!!!! :-)

You okay, Jack?  Or have you just been hangin' out in SOAPBOX again?

Richard

    Wasn't there an OT story that told of a case where this law was being
    avoided by the surviving brother?  I think the surviving brother "dropped
    his seed" on the way to visiting his sister-in-law, this angered God
    and then... I dunno... God struck him dead with a lightning bolt or
    something.  I was told that this story is the sole source of justifying
    the present day western attitudes toward masterbation.
                                            
    

    No, I just don't want to marry my SIL! :-)

    Who said anything about marry ;-)

    You aren't supposed to marry her, just put a son into her so your
    brother has an heir.  marrying her when you already have a wife would
    be immoral.
    
    grimmace

    Well, what about the culture thingie....Jacob with Leah, Rachael, and
    the concubine....that sort of good Old Testament knowhow?!

    Onan was the man, but he wasn't masturbating.  He withdrew.

|>    bring him before the elders of the city, and in their presence remove a
|>    sandal from his foot and spit in his face.  The purpose of the law
|>    obviously was to provide an heir for the dead brother (Deuteronomy
|>    25:5-10).
    
25:5  If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the
 wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's
 brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the
 duty of an husband's brother unto her.

25:6  And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in
 the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

25:7  And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his
 brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's
 brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not
 perform the duty of my husband's brother.

25:8  Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he
 stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

25:9  Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the
 elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall
 answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his
 brother's house.

25:10  And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his
 shoe loosed.
    
|I'll bite.  What's the significance of removing a sandal from the man's foot?
    
    I'm sure verses 9-10 explains part of it.  To have a shoe removed on
    refusal to undertake a levirate marriage was to be shown contempt (v.
    9).  Interestingly enough, the arrangement between Boaz and Elimelech's
    nearer relative, Boaz gave his sandal to confirm the bargain (Ruth
    4:7).
    
    The same source that explained the law says that sandals were a prize 
    possession.  Sometimes they were even offered as a bribe to a judge 
    (1 Samuel 12:3) and a poor man's shoes were the most trifling pledge 
    that could be accepted (Amos 2:6; 8:6).  Where these were lacking, the 
    debtor was likely to be enslaved by the unrelenting creditor.  In the 
    New Testament, absence of shoes were a mark of poverty (Luke 15:22).  
    Shoes were also commanded to be removed when entering the Temple area.  
    The priests didn't wear shoes.
    
|Does spitting in the face roughly mean then what it means now (ie, "You're
|dirt and I spit on you!")?

    I imagine it's the same as today.
    
    Mike

.14

>    Onan was the man, but he wasn't masturbating.  He withdrew.

And so, even today there may be a penalty for early withdrawal.

%^}

Richard

    Did not the levirate marriage custom have the effect of providing some
    measure of security for the widow, albeit unspoken?
    
    Richard
    

.10

>    No, I just don't want to marry my SIL! :-)

The concept causes me to shudder as well.  I guess, were it still in
effect, we men would be a bit more concerned about whom our brothers
selected as mates.

Richard

>>    No, I just don't want to marry my SIL! :-)
>
>The concept causes me to shudder as well.  I guess, were it still in
>effect, we men would be a bit more concerned about whom our brothers
>selected as mates.

This is scarry.  We *ALL* (the three of us) are if full agreement.

Tom

    My wife has 2 sisters.  It would depend on which one ;-)
    
    Mike (yeah I know I'm being sexist)

>    My wife has 2 sisters.  It would depend on which one ;-)

I thought it was your *brother's* wife you were supposed to marry.

Tom

    Your wife's sisters would be looking at a brother or uncle of their
    husbands, not you.  Now on the other hand, if your brother died before
    he produced a male heir.....

    That's right, I goofed.  I guess I'm spared because my only brother is
    a half-brother that is 11. ;-)

    I've always been confused by this. Why did Henry VIII of England require a
    special dispensation from the Pope to marry his brother's widow? On what
    grounds did he later challenge the validity of that dispensation and create
    the Anglican Church? Did I entirely misunderstand what they were saying on
    Masterpiece Theater or what?

    John

The levirate law applies when brothers live together.

Henry and his brother did not live together, so the injunction against
taking his brother's wife in Leviticus 20:21 (and codified in canon law)
applied.

Catherine was the aunt of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the death
of her first husband, Henry's older brother, had taken her out of a rather
lucrative dynastic and geopolitical position.  The papal dispensation from
canon law was obtained.

However, the marriage did not produce children, and Henry became convinced
that the papal dispensation was invalid, and that he was being punished as
specified in Lev 20:21 -- the union will remain childless.

He sought an annulment.  Annulments were quite easy to obtain under normal
circumstances, but Henry's case had two problems: the first being the fact
that a papal dispensation had authorized it in the first place, and the
second being that the Holy Roman Emperor had held the Pope in prison for
two years, after which the Pope never again dared to defy him.

The idea that Henry would die without an heir was unthinkable in England;
it would have meant that the English monarchy would have ended and England
would have been subject to the Spanish throne.  Thus it wasn't just Henry,
but rather the entire English Court and Parliament that found it urgent
that Henry be freed of Catherine.

BTW, the Church in England returned to Rome during the reign of Queen Mary;
the final split took place under Henry's younger daughter, Queen Elizabeth.

/john

    Thanks for the explanation, John.
    
    John