The Romans saw the gods as beings to be manipulated into providing blessings.
The gods themselves cared little, if at all, about the people. Indeed, the stories about the gods suggested that that gods might rape and commit murder at will. The gods were in no sense “good.” But they had great power.
The gods’ influence on humans was called numen. The gods had a need for sacrifice — a pinch of incense or the blood of a bull — and providing sacrifices to the gods would be rewarded with numen. You can think if numen as a finite pool of goodwill or beneficence toward humans. As one author explains —
In practical terms, whenever one invokes the aid of a God or Goddess, what is asked is that the deity will project His or Her special numen so that whatever task is to be attempted shall succeed in accordance with the Gods. The two most basic prayers in the religio Romana are Do ut das, “I give so that You may give,” and the formula: bonas preces precor, ut sis volens propitius, “I pray good prayers in order that You may willingly be propitious.” And the way that a God is propitious is to lend His numen. Every time a Roman went from his home, every time Julius Caesar climbed into his carriage, for every chore a matron might begin, or a farmer, or a carpenter, or a shoemaker, each would call upon a God or Goddess first so that their actions would be imbued with a favorable numen appropriate to the task they undertook. One never relied on only a single God for everything, lest he would be abandoned by the other Gods and not benefit from their numina as well. So with our prayers and our right we call down numina from the Gods.
The trade was not based on love or compassion but the need of the gods for sacrifice for nourishment.
The sacrificial ceremony typically involved a procession of the victims to the altar, prayer of the officiant with offering of wine, incense, and other foods, pouring of the wine on the animal’s head by the officiant, killing of the animal by slaves, examination of the entrails for omens, burning of parts of the animal on the altar, followed by a banquet on the rest of the meat. …
A peculiarity quite characteristic of the legal nature of Roman religion was the requirement that certain ceremonies be done just right, with exact, minute prescriptions. If a mistake was made, the ceremony had to be repeated. … Hence, these ceremonies were recited from a book.
Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
The distinctive Roman religious feeling may be seen in the words pietas and religio. Pietas meant doing one’s obligations. A “pious” person was one who observed the rites most scrupulously. Religio meant scruple or awe in the presence of the divine, the feeling of uneasiness if anything in the sphere of pietas was not performed. A person was under obligation.
Ibid. p. 173.
Just so, PBS explains Roman paganism —
Divine blessing
The objective of Roman worship was to gain the blessing of the gods and thereby gain prosperity for themselves, their families and communities. …
Cult worship
Unlike most religions today, the Roman gods did not demand strong moral behavior. Roman religion involved cult worship. Approval from the gods did not depend on a person’s behavior, but on perfectly accurate observance of religious rituals.
The goal was not to love the gods or to enter into personal relationship with the gods. Rather, the goal was to control the gods by following the rituals very precisely and giving the gods what they want.
The structure was not only legal but commercial. I give the god a sacrifice; he repays me with favor — provided I follow the rules exactly. Of course, the sacrifices often failed to work, meaning I’d probably messed up the ritual, said the words imprecisely, or otherwise gave unwitting offense — not because of the state of my heart but because I failed to follow the instructions with sufficient precision. As a result, the typical ritual included words such as these —
“If less than all of the sacrifice is successfully made,” then make an additional sacrifice with the formula “if something of this sacrifice was not pleasing to you, this sacrifice (I make) to you in atonement.”
Pagan worship was thus what we often call “magic.” In fact, magic is a residue leftover from ancient paganism. It’s the nature of magic that you get the gods to do what you want by reading the “spell” and saying the words and doing the ceremony quite precisely, all because these gods supposedly care so much about the ritual and words that humans can manipulate them to their own ends by recitation and rite.
Why on earth would such powerful beings care what incantations are spoken and animals sacrificed by a mere human? Well, because the gods need sacrifice — which ultimately shows them to be weak.
Well, not all that weak. After all, if a human were to give offense to a god, the god might retaliate vengefully. The gods were not righteous at all. Indeed, they could be covetous and jealous. To deal with them at all was to approach great power and risk the penalty of giving great offense.
But to fail to sacrifice and participate in the rituals risked even more certain anger and retaliation.
Of course, some gods were seen as benevolent and kind-hearted; whereas others were seen as unpredictable and dangerous. Neptune, god of the sea, was clearly a dangerous god capable of great destruction. But seafarers had better sacrifice faithfully or risk even greater harm from an angry god.
Not surprisingly, the early church struggled mightily to persuade its converts to believe in the God of the Jews in the right way. The natural tendency was for new converts to fit this new God into their pagan worldview — seeing the Christian assembly as just another means of “sacrifice” designed to trade a few hours of Christian misery (sermons could be bad in the First Century, too) for God’s favor. After all, surely what God wants from Christians is sacrifice and scrupulous adherence to ritual — just like the pagan gods.
Well, this was the assumption of some, and we see much of this attitude in the rituals of the Medieval Catholic Church. It’s no surprise that the “magic” words “hocus pocus” derive from the Latin hoc est corpus (meum), this is (my) body — words used in the
Eucharist at the time of transubstantiation. The common folks saw and heard the priest reciting certain words out of a book in order to cause God himself to take certain actions. To them, it surely looked just like magic.
So it seems that the more things change they still stay the same. We still pray that we have not given offense in our worship and such like things.
Too academic for this old professor.
This mindset brings to mind conservative Churches of Christ and their obsession with getting every detail correct with the worship assembly often to the neglect of matters of justice and compassion.
When Jesus quoted Hosea’s word of God, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”, he turned the religious world upside down. He, in fulfillment of the prophet, issued God’s plea, “Do you really wish to honor me? Then honor those who are mine. Honor them with your kindness, your tenderness, you compassion, your embracing, your healing, honor them with your desire and yearning for reconciliation”.
We fulfill the prophet’s words by striving to keep God and humanity in the same thought at the same time. Too radical, too difficult some may claim? Radical and difficult indeed. But when Jesus looked at his little ones he thought of their Father who was among them; the challenge is open and unmistakable.
This felt bizarre to read…because you could have changed small-g “god” to “God” in most parts of it and it still be the same. Except that we view the God on our team to be the good God.
God committing murder at will? Like if, say, a bunch of kids make fun of a bald guy (Elisha) and he has them killed?
Or ritualistic sacrifice? Or feeling that if we do right we’ll be blessed? C’mon, we can all act like we don’t believe this but let’s face it — our elders are usually pretty dang wealthy.
We might not specifically worry that we got the wording of our prayers wrong…but there will be plenty of people willing to tell us that we are praying for the wrong thing(s) if they don’t come true. And if something different comes true, then that was God giving us what we actually needed. This is all very magical, too.
Doing prescribed things in a presribed manner is very Biblical. If God gave instruction for worship of Him in a particular way, then we’d best give our all to do so. He did exactly that in the Law. Was He willing to give a pass if the letter was not obeyed but the heart was right? On occassions, yes. But make no mistake there were severe consequences for a flippant attitude.
We come to the New Covenant and we see freedom in our worship without the “Thus saith, the Lord.” But we do see again the severe consequences for wrongful attitudes or actions, Annanias and Sapphira, the Corinthian Christians who (some) had “fallen asleep” for their negligent actions in the observance of the Communion, and in Peter’s dire rebuke to Simon who wanted to purchase the Holy Spirit power.
I know that so many of our brethren see(because they’ve been taught to see) a thus saith the Lord for so many things where He hasnt’ given one. We need to guide them gently away from these things when possible. But these things have been engrained in the core of their conscience for decades usually. They trusted their leaders(as I did),and in many cases their parents, without alot of questioning and scholarship. They are obeying what they believe to be “scripture.” Just like you or I would if that’s what we believed. You just don’t come along and throw a few articles in front of them and say, “See how wrong you’ve been.” And expect gratitude.
But with that said, we’d all better obey, in the prescribed manner (if and when given) with the right attitude what the Lord says. He’s not a God to be trifled with.
Monty, yet we see supposed disciples putting their spin on God’s ordinances as though
He won’t retaliate. Some think He’s unfair as the example Jon quoted indicated. Yes,
God sent the bears. No, He’s fair because He is God. The prophets He sent were not to
be mocked. The parents may have thought Him unfair but who defines fairness. Not us, we are finite and will someday die and be judged by whom? God is good, until He
ain’t.
David, God is not “good until he ain’t”, God is always good in all situations because goodness is part of his nature. Punishment for wrong doing still flows from his goodness.
I’d argue that our God isn’t terribly different from the gods Jay criticizes. The difference is, well, he (God) is “our” God. Depending on what continent you live on, you likely feel the same way about “your” God. We just say our difference is that our God rose from the dead. On other continents people laugh and say, “Your God died?! A REAL God can never die!”
This just all seems to me like a cosmic moving of the goal posts. Our God does things which seem awful to us because it flows from His goodness. Other gods do awful things because they are just awful. Maybe the awful things that they did was part of their goodness, and we just don’t understand it.
Furthermore, this is getting to my main God issue: Our faith in God has to start with faith. We start out with a faith that God is good, that God desires good for us… something. Or we have faith in the Bible. Or we start out with a faith that SOMETHING must be right, and so we’ll go with the Jewish God team. But our faith has to start somewhere, and that for me is a big Pascalian Wager.
Skip, I got that from a promo of a sitcom which struck me as provoking. Nothing
escapes the providence and judgment of the God who as the Psalmist said “rides on
the clouds”.
Psa 78:31 The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen [men] of Israel.
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Col 3:6 For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
This is not speaking of “Roman gods” this is spoken of the “Jewish gods” all three of them.
John F, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He never moves the goal posts. In addition, good parents discipline their kids. Modern parents change their rules and/or consequences all the time.
“Why on earth would such powerful beings care what incantations are spoken and animals sacrificed by a mere human? Well, because the gods need sacrifice — which ultimately shows them to be weak.”
Jay is this what you are talking about when you speak of ” incantations are spoken and animals sacrificed by a mere human?” show that a god is weak?
Does this incantation Show God’s weakness?
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.
Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Does the sacrifice demanded by God show a weakness?
Exd 5:3 And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword.
Exd 10:25 And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the LORD our God.
Exd 23:15 Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty:)
God demands sacrifice, if you think that makes him weak, that is your choice of words not mine.
Skip, depersonalizing God into an immovable superpower is not encouraging. He does
alter previous dispositions. There are many instances of withholding wrath in scripture. He has a heart for people who set their eyes upon him who otherwise would
have been destroyed. The Stone God image is from John Calvin who must have been a
totally miserable human being.
David, God is very personable to me. Malachi 3:6 says he never changes. You and I are probably thinking on very different levels.
Over the last two thousand years, man has become so self centered and arrogant, that they not only think Jesus (a man) is equal to God they think they are equal to Jesus,therefore?
Well all men don’t at least this man who we all know, or know of didn’t– Skip or David what man said the following?
” The names Jesus, Christ, or Messiah, Only Begotten Son, Son of God, belong to the Founder of the christian religion, and to none else.
They express not a relation existing before the christian era, but relations which commenced at that time.
To understand the relation betwixt the Saviour and his Father, which existed before time, and that relation which began in time, is impossible on either of these theories.
There was no Jesus, no Messiah, no Christ, no Son of God, no Only Begotten, before the reign of Augustus Cesar.
The relation that was before the christian era, was not that of a son and a father terms which always imply disparity; but it was that expressed by John in the sentence under consideration.
The relation was that of God, and the “word of God.”
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Laymond, we hashed this out before ad nauseum. No point in debating over and over the exact same arguments.
Skip says:
“David, God is very personable to me.”
Skip, there is nothing personal about God, he does not consider one man over another. God is the Almighty creator, your Lord and Master. and should be the object of worship. Worship God continually,
this means nothing, nothing ever is elevated over the importance of God.
Laymond, If you want to have a collective, distant, impersonal relationship with God, then that is your business. I embrace the personal God that is described in scripture.
From the post: “Religio meant scruple or awe in the presence of the divine, the feeling of uneasiness if anything in the sphere of pietas was not performed. A person was under obligation.”
This gives me some insight into James 1:27. If we wish to see ourselves as wanting to scrupulously do exactly what God expects of us… forget how we do church services. HERE is what God sees as our real obligation to Him– caring for those who cannot do anything for us in return, and refusing to live according to standards that are not His.
Charles,
Many peoples have done for each other just as you say and that was their main religion beliefs before and after Jesus came to this earth. They lived far away from the modeast. Whether they knew of our God and Jesus is debatable. They didn’t have the bible in written form.
It is in man to worship God and they did it as best and in whatever way they thought was right.
Their methods might of been wrong, but their hearts were right. Sound familiar today?
They whys and questions concerning those peoples eternal whereabouts will be interesting to know someday.
I’ll never believe they all went to hell to suffer for eternity as we in the COC have preached.
AJ, amen! God won’t keep sinners alive consciously in agony that never ends.
The wages of sin is DEATH.
Skip, I am just asking you if you know who I quoted there.
Laymond, Don’t play games with me. Let’s have a grown up conversation or no conversation at all. Of course God is Almighty and is The Everlastimg Father. He is also my friend and is personal with me. I will let you do your homework to see how God is like this.