The Immorality of the Decameron

The Black Plague struck Europe in the 17^th century, and modern historians estimate that it wiped out nearly one third of Europe’s total population. There was no cure – the people were helpless to save themselves. And many of them cried out to God – but there was no salvation. The Plague continued to spread.

The culture lost its faith in God. They began to revive the worldviews and thinking of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, renewing principles of logic and reason, and throwing themselves to enjoy things of the physical world, for they knew they could die at any moment. They lost a sense of morality found in Scripture – they drifted from the religious devotion of the earlier medieval periods because they felt that God had abandoned them.

Using the system of thinking I have learnt to adopt in this course, the changes become more marked and easier to see.

#1 – Sovereignty – In earlier periods, the people would have looked to God as their sovereign, but now they were going through hard times and believed that God had abandoned them. Even though God still held a position of sovereignty over them, they chose to ignore Him. The people didn’t realize that hard times may also come after choosing to follow God, as a test of faith.

#2 – Authority – As a result of the above points, the people switched from relying on both the Church and the State, to simply relying on the State.

#3 – Law – In spite of the fact that the laws of the land still existed and the State was in control, many officials were incapable of enforcing said laws, because of the great sickness and confusion. Moral law, however, was a different story – there was NO control, because the Church had lost its power in the eyes of the people. Since the people had decided that they didn’t want God to be their sovereign, they simply decided not to follow his moral laws. This led to an extreme moral deterioration in which adultery, murder, and theft abounded, and was often even glorified through the literature.

To quote “The Decameron” … “whereby every man was free to do what was right in his own eyes.”

To quote the Bible … “every man did what was right in his own eyes.”

The Israelites also fell prey to this mindset, yet God did not give up on them. The Europeans should have learned their lesson from the Israelites.

#4 – Sanctions – No one was getting punished for disobeying the moral laws that the nations had once held to, because there was no longer any punishment for disobedience of those moral laws. (Reason #1 – Moral decline. Reason #2 – Most potential enforcers of correct moral sanctions were unable to actually enforce them.) New sanctions were being presented, such as: If one should choose to commit adultery, let him – he may die soon anyway.

#5 – Inheritance – When faced with the bleak prospect of imminent death by an incurable virus, people lost heart. According to them, the end was near. They had no desire to work towards the future, because they had lost hope in the future. This resulted in many people living “for the moment”, doing whatever they wanted, regardless of the consequences. This calls to mind the age-old phrase, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we may die.”

---

Boccaccio invoked the name of God in order to hide what he was really dishing out, which was smut literature, for the purpose of the satisfaction of sexual desires. I will not be reading the more unsavory parts of the Decameron, but the mere fact that in one chapter God’s name is called upon, and then in the next a sexual scene is described, impresses upon me that perhaps Boccaccio was not himself a man of moral uprightness and perfect character.

In general, the Decameron emphasized that religion required reason and sincere faith. According to the book, actions didn’t matter, as seen in the chapters in which impure conduct is described. Yet biblically, deeds displayed true faith. Moral uprightness shows the world that we believers truly are different and have a different spirit inside of us.

We even have this problem today. People believe that as long as they have faith in God, say that He is the lord of their lives, and accept the fact that Christ will forever be the only perfect man, they can do whatever they want. They say that actions don’t much matter to their faith – that, as long as they are sincere in merely their thoughts, they are “all good” under heaven. This is certainly not the case – but people didn’t get it in the 1700s, and they still don’t get it today.

Sadly, even contemporary literature displays this theme – a book may refer to God, in passing, but yet the characters themselves may act just like the world, with debauchery and impure swearing – in other words, like non-Christians. One example is the popular and exciting ‘Divergent’ series – yes, full of adventure, and it does throw a few bones to a supreme deity – yet full of moral decay to the foundations.

“People can’t read your thoughts to see if you have a truly sincere faith. A truly sincere faith is shown by the deeds and actions of the believer.”

Makayla

Advertisement

Medieval Literature as Lifestyle Advice

When we think of a typical Christian life, we might think of someone who has devoted their life to loving Christ through obeying and trusting in Him and serving others. But practically, getting down to the minute level, what’s the Christian decision when faced with chores, or friendships? In these cases, where there is less scriptural perogative, we must rely on Biblical principles to guide us. Everyday life is full of pot-holes to any believer, but we don’t have to be afraid of them.

Two documents of the medieval period, “Song of Roland” and “The Little Flowers of St Francis”, attempted to show moral decisions in the everyday lives of extraordinary people. But what about us ordinary people? What can we learn from these examples? Some of us will never be faced with the problems that the characters were faced with, but we certainly have other problems! What do we do?

Song of Roland

The conflict between Oliver and Roland is one of the crucial points in the narrative. Yet, the way that the characters deal with the conflict is rather unsatisfying at best, and simply stupid at worst. If an idea is wrong, and you tell a friend, and you’re right, they should listen. But if they don’t listen, and it still results in a positive outcome, does that make their decision any less undesirable? Oliver was right and Roland was wrong, yet the latter wouldn’t budge, and did whatever he felt would save their honor, and that of his own family.

As far as ethical decisions go, I’m sure that it is plain to see that Ganelon’s betrayal was wrong. His punishment? Getting pulled apart by horses.

How can we, in this modern world, use this as an example as to how we should deal with betrayal today? The practice of pulling people apart by horses (dismemberment) was NOT biblical at ALL. If one of OUR friends betray us, should we follow Charlemagne’s example by tying their limbs to horses and tearing them apart? (To enlighten you; this is a rhetorical question.) So as you can see, not all principles (and in my opinion, hardly any!) constitute as moral enough to emulate in our everyday lives. However, the principles of love, loyalty, bravery, grief, and righteous judgement are all absolutely biblical gems to take away from this book, if you should read it.

Little Flowers

The earliest chapters of the book details St Francis’ rise (or perhaps I should say descent) to holy poverty. Many men join him and become his followers, his “brethren”. There are additional sections dedicated to the actions of St Francis himself, Brother Bernard, Brother Juniper, Brother Giles, and select other of the brethren. The chapters in the latter part of the book are more focused on ethics and guidance in heavenly matters than on detailed stories of the lives of those belonging to the order.

One trouble with the ethical advice given by Brother Giles in the final chapters of the book is that they seem to contradict at key points. He stresses the major importance of not working for salvation, not even bothering to work at ALL – then says we must be diligent. (Diligent in what? Being lazy?!) He says that chastity is the most important virtue – then redefines chastity as charity! (Which is absolutely incorrect.) The strict principles of the monastic and Fransiscan orders are anything but biblical.

Biblically, a man should be free to “eat and drink, and find satisfaction in his work.” He should be allowed to marry a good wife, “for her measure is far above rubies”. He could have cattle and sheep, and land, and children “as numerous as the stars”. He could be a great leader, and still be “a man after God’s own heart.” Yet, all these principles go against Franciscan tradition. Which begs the question – were the friars substituting God’s system with their own tradition?

These two books don’t satisfy a longing for truth. Neither of these books show us how to live, or even if we will go to heaven if we copy the characters in the stories. Yes, both contain concepts such as the sovereignty of God, tight systems of institutional hierarchy, obedience as crucial to success. Yet, although there were rules galore littering the chapters of these books, neither book dealt with or explained the true Law – the Law of their own God!

Makayla

The Little Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi

English 145: “If you had been listening to these stories in 1300, what would you have concluded from them is the way to gain eternal life?”

“The Little Flowers of Saint Francis of Assisi” were written in order to share some of the notable works that St Francis performed during his time, and also included several stories of the other brethren in his convent. He was born into a wealthy family, and lived a normal life of the average rich young man, which included setting off to war. But that excursion was cut short when a vision sent him back to Assisi, where he began to feel convicted of his sins and, in order to do penance, he resolved to give up ownership of material things and to enter the line of work I like to term as “evangelistic begging”. He abandoned house and business in order that he might preach about God and spread the word about the life of poverty, and simply relied on the people of the towns he entered to give him sustenance.

His ministry grew to gigantic proportions – He founded the Orders of the Friars Minor, Third Order of St Francis, ands the Order of St Clare. At first, he only had twelve followers – but as he continued to spread the word about the glory of a life in poverty, many more people, often rich, joined the brotherhood. Women were directed to the women’s convent, under the order of St. Clare, one of St. Francis’ earlier converts.

In “The Little Flowers”, he and his disciples are quoted for many speeches and beliefs, most of which used the act of “penance” (which included fasting, praying, wearing uncomfortable garments, etc), and the life of extreme poverty (living in a convent, but when out on the road, relying on the whims of the people for sustenance and shelter), as a ways to become the holiest of men. In the book, there was no concept of Christ’s sacrifice as paying for their sins – instead, the Friars Minor appeared to believe that merely by fasting, praying, discussing holy things, and living a self-abusive life in poverty, would eventually cause them to be regarded as saints and give them access to the Kingdom of heaven.

Many key stories do not discuss the issue of “repentance” – the only specific changes that converts made to their lifestyle was to enter the convent – a structure of man-made rules and traditions. Although the main rule of the Order of St Francis was “To follow the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and to walk in his footsteps,” they could not show those who did not wish to give up everything they had, how they could be saved. In the story of the town of Gubbio, the St. Francis established the Third Order of St Francis, a more relaxed order for those who still needed to dwell in one place, and attend business – but it is still not said how these people attained their salvation and there is no mention of Jesus. This concept of “salvation through Christ and Christ alone” is not mentioned in the book.

Reading through the stories, I noticed several recurring themes.

1. The Friars Minor were not to question or even wonder about why St Francis made certain decisions. In fact, the curious thoughts in their minds were considered to be thoughts put there by the devil! (This is a problem, because, if the friars could not understand how the St Fracis made his decisions, then how would they know how to make decisions in the future?)

2. The life of poverty was glorious, and made sinful men holy. (Scripturally speaking, the word “holy” is mistranslated. At it’s root, the Hebrew word actually means “set-apart”. Nowhere in scripture does it state that living a life of poverty would “make you holy” … in contrast, the only lifestyle that God said would “set his people apart from the nations (state reference)” was the lifestyle of following the Law of God. The Israelites lived very different lives from the nations around them and were “set apart”, because of the blessings of obeying the Law.)

3. St Francis , and his closest followers, such as Brothers Ruffino and Bernard, were holy men. St Francis closest followers were considered to be the most holy men since the apostles. (I confess, I have a hard time accepting that these men were equal, or even ‘close’, in holiness set-apartness when compared to the apostles. One fundamental difference between the apostles and the followers of St Francis, was their preaching. The apostles preached Jesus, God, Law, Salvation, Grace, and Love. The Friars Minor preached Penance, Abstinence, Tradition, Poverty, Sainthood, and Passivity.)

An issue resides in the rules of the convent. The Bible only says to avoid certain meats – however, the Fransiscans were not to eat ANY meat. The Bible said not to have a love of money – the Fransiscans abandoned money altogether. The Bible stated not to commit adultery or abominable sexual relations – the Fransiscans set up certain boundaries for biblical marriage itself, saying that those devoted to a husband or wife cannot be fully devoted to Christ and the Church.

The Fransiscan lifestyle may fit some people, but to say “obeying these rules makes you holy” is to side with the Pharisees of old. The traditions of the Friars mirrored the purpose of the trradition of the Phariesses – redefining holiness, in their eyes, a better definition. But holiness needs no new definition – the definition of “set-apartness” will always and forever involve being different from the the nations, in obedience to God’s commands.

Makayla

Paul in Acts 15 and 21

(This is a discussion of a missionary attempt by Paul, based on what is written in Acts (and in other books of the Bible.)

He was Paul, the Pharisee. He was the one who oversaw Stephen’s stoning. He was the one who hated Christians and what they stood for. He was the one who sought them out to imprison and kill them. He was the one who persecuted believers, and, in doing so, persecuted the Messiah.

He was Paul, the apostle. He was a man whose vision changed his life. He was a man who went to nations near and far to preach the story of the God of Abraham and the Messiah. He was the one who loved all people and desired to help save them, who wrote meaty letters to them to admonish the growing churches. He was a man who endured all sorts of set-backs, persecution, and physical hardships, in the name of Yeshua. He was a martyr who died for Messiah.

Can you believe he was the same man? There was a drastic difference between the Paul he used to be and the Paul he became.

(Note: Paul’s Hebrew name was Sha’ul. However, Paul is the name most people recognize, so for this essay I will refer to him as ‘Paul”.)

After Paul first started talking about Jesus, it seemed that you couldn’t get him to stop! It didn’t matter if you imprisoned, shipwrecked, or tried to stone him, the guy just wasn’t at all fazed!

One scenario I would like to cover in this essay is the reason for the Jerusalem Council, (which was held in AD 50,) and the result of said council. The reason I want to discuss this is because I disagree with my teacher in his interpretation of the Jerusalem Council verdict. He believes, (as do many Christians), that the decision meant that Christians no longer have to obey the Law of God as given at Mount Sinai. (The Law is documented in the first five books of the Bible.)

In the beginning of Acts chapter 15, we see that there were people telling new converts that they must be circumcised in order to obtain salvation. Obviously, this idea was seen as incorrect by the apostles. Getting circumcised cannot give you salvation. We are saved by faith, like Abraham, whose faith (belief and obedience) made him righteous. (see Genesis 15:6 and Hebrews 11:8.)

Therefore, the council convened to discuss their response to the mislead congregation. They decided that in their letter, they would tell the people to “abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:26.) At first glance, it would appear that these are the only rules by which believers have to abide.

But let’s back up a bit.

Why would the apostles tell the new Christians to abide by these rules? They didn’t say anything about not murdering. They didn’t say anything about not stealing. So why only these four rules?

Well, the new Christians had just come out of a pagan system of worship, in which they would offer animals to their gods as bloody sacrifices, then drink the blood of the offerings. They would eat meat from animals which had been strangled to death, and then they would engage in sexual immorality with both male and female temple prostitutes. This was a very gruesome reality of the pagan religion. It was similar to the time when the Israelites were at Mount Sinai, sinning against God by worshipping the golden calf, and “sat down to eat, and rose up to play.” (Exodus 32:6.) So basically, the apostles were telling the people to give up their specifically pagan temple worship.

“But there’s more to being a Christian than just giving stuff up.”, you might say. I agree, and so did they. In verse 21, the apostles land the clincher in their reasoning. “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” (Acts 15:21.)

What does it mean when it says “Moses” is read? At the time, believers would meet in the synagogues on the Sabbath to read the law (which was called “Moses”, because it was given to Moses at Mount Sinai) and the prophets (the Bible books of the Old Testament.) If the new believers would give up their pagan practices, then when they went to the synagogues, they could learn to study and obey the Law from the teachers and other believers.

God does not want us to worship him in the way the pagans do. (Deuteronomy 12:29-32) New believers must discard the pagan ways of worship and learn to obey God in the way he has commanded them.

Although salvation does not come through circumcision, does this mean that circumcision is unimportant? Of course not! It is a way we can show love to God by our obedience.

Some people believe that when Paul went to deliver the letter, he would tell the Christians that they did not have to be circumcised. If this was true, then why did Paul circumcise Timothy just before taking him along in order to tell the gentiles that they did NOT have to become circumcised? (Acts 16:1-3) The theories don’t match up.

We must therefore conclude that although circumcision is not necessary for salvation, it is a way to obey God in a way he has commanded us to. It is a way to show others that we believe in Yahweh.

This brings up the issue of ‘circumcision of the heart’. Physical circumcision does no good without the circumcision of the heart, as we see in the prophetic times. Israel strayed from Yahweh in their hearts yet continued to offer Him sacrifices. He hated that they were only serving Him outwardly, while inwardly they worshipped others. (Isaiah 1:11-15, Jeremiah 4:4.)

In fact, Deuteronomy 30 itself refers to circumcision of the heart, so this is not a new concept.

What if Yahweh wanted us to circumcise physically … and circumcise our hearts … at the same time?

————————————-

10 years later, Paul came back to Jerusalem, and they rejoiced at the many new believers. But the elders told Paul that there were some people saying “Paul teaches that the new believers MUST NOT circumcise their children.” (Acts 21:17-26.) Were these reports true? Or were the people lying?

In verse 24, James gave Paul advice on how he ought to respond.

“Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.” – Acts 21:24, NIV (emphasis mine)

So the reports were NOT true! Paul was in fact living in obedience to the law. As we know, Paul believed that leaders should set a good example for the believers, as he said when he advised Timothy in his first letter. (See verse below.)

“…. But set an example for the believers, in speech, in life, in love, in faith, and in purity.” 1 Timothy 4:12

Paul set a good example for the believers in his life, by “living in obedience to the law.” He, an apostle of Christ, was following the Law even twenty-nine years after the resurrection of Christ!

Conclusion …

Contrary to common Christian thinking, the narrative in Acts 15-21 does not mean that the apostles decided against new Christians following the Law. In fact, they were in full support of it!

However, you cannot gain your salvation through following the law, and THAT is what Paul and the apostles were concerned about.

All throughout the Bible, it is written that the Law is good, reviving the soul, sweet, righteous, a lamp and a light … and it is true. (1 Timothy 1:8, Psalm 19:7, Psalm 119:103, Romans 7:12, Proverbs 6:23, psalm 119:142.) God’s law is not a burden or just a bunch of rules. It defines the boundaries for a healthy life and a strong walk of faith.

Let me know your thoughts!

Makayla

Ethics in the Bible

What is the view of the biblical materials on the role of ethics in the development of history?

In this essay, I will give a general overview of some of the ethical concepts in the stories of creation, the flood, the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, and in the Psalms and Proverbs.

Creation (Genesis (sin, fall, must obey, etc.)

The birth of ethics begins in Genesis. The first command in the Bible where God told man to not do something was: “Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Man disobeyed the command, therefore he got the negative sanctions associated with the disobedience of that command – eventual death. The concept of ethics was formed very early on in the creation story, and likely the very “first sin”, was the rebellion of the serpent, which led to the first human sins (Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.) Thus sin entered the world.

How do we know that the Bible contains ethics? Because it has a concept of right and wrong. How do we know what is right and wrong? Obedience is right and sin is wrong. What is sin? Sin the transgression of the law of God (righteousness). We could not know what sin was, except through the law and through commands like “Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

The Flood

When all men but Noah and his family had stopped following Yahweh’s ways, Yah sent a flood to destroy all the evildoers, and saved Noah and his family in a boat. This story follows similar construction as the creation story: Yah allows people to live, yet they disobey, so he brings negative sanctions (death) upon the wicked. This time, however, Yah saves the righteous remaining. The message this sends is that He will not destroy those who obey and follow Him.

After the flood, a disgraceful thing happens in Noah’s family. Ham (one of Noah’s three sons) sees his father’s nakedness. Instead of keeping his mouth shut, he goes and tells his brothers, who go and cover up their father, turning their faces away that they might not see Noah. Noah wakes up and finds out what happens, and becomes very angry, cursing Ham’s son Canaan, and blesses his other two sons.

What can we learn from this? Don’t take or see what is not yours to take or see.

Giving of the Law

The people of Israel had just been freed from slavery and had come out of Egypt. Yahweh gave his Law to Moses, the chief spokesman of the people, to tell the assembly of the Israelites. Because of this, it is often referred to as the “law of Moses”, however Moses didn’t command the law, Yahweh did. Therefore, we may also call it the Law of God.

In giving a Law, Yahweh was giving His people a choice; either to obey or disobey him. He was telling them that in order to be His people, they must obey Him. What were the sanctions for obedience?

“Honor your father and your mother: that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God gives you.”

Exodus 20:12

Positive actions (such as honoring your father and mother) warrant positive sanctions.

Moses had gone up to the mountain to receive the Law from Yahweh. But the people, becoming anxious at waiting for Moses for 40 days, decided to worship a golden calf, an idol, instead of obeying Yahweh’s command, “You shall not have any other god before me.” When Yah told Moses what happened, he came down from the mountain to carry out Yah’s punishment.

Moses made them melt down the golden calf, grind it up, and put the gold in water to drink. Then the Levites carried out a massacre and killed about three thousand people. Then, a plague broke out among the people.

So we see that negative actions (disobedience of the law) warrants negative sanctions.

I believe the law is still applicable today, and we know that Yahweh never changes. Therefore, in the development of history, the law has remained a way for us to show others our morality comes from Yah.

Psalms

This book, written by David, contains songs and poems of praise to Yahweh. Themes David stresses are worship, obedience, resolution of inner conflicts, sovereignty of Yahweh, and many more. How does David want to be treated? He wants to be saved from the persecution of his enemies, because he obeys Yah. How does David want his enemies to be treated? He wants them to be destroyed for their unlawful acts.

Again, negative actions means negative sanctions.

Proverbs – Consequences of choosing to follow the right path …or choosing not to.

Proverbs is a book written by the wisest created man in the Bible, Solomon. Throughout the entire book, Solomon gives his son advice on wisdom, integrity, obedience, and interacting with people. He uses metaphors and contrived circumstances to emphasize the importance of being moral, wise, and humble. Proverbs 7 and Proverbs 31 compare the wayward woman with the righteous one.

Solomon holds to the principle that if you associate with immoral people, you may be affected, and if you are immoral, you will face negative sanctions such as poverty, shame, and death. But the sanctions of being moral and wise include prosperity, happiness, and long life.

Conclusion

The Bible has TONS to say on ethics. I’ve only scratched the surface. But these five stories/books can teach us that there IS morality, and the Biblical consequences of immorality are hardships, curses, and death. But the consequences of obedience and faith are positive sanctions.