by jimwalton » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:50 pm
> Lev. 24.10-16
This law is casuistic (hypothetical situations to teach principles). It is tied to the circumstances of the context and is not a general law. God's name is a representation of His Person, and blasphemy was the worst offense and immorality possible. An attempt to destroy God was worse than anything one could do to a person. Blasphemy that would affect the future destiny of others, possibly even generations, and by extension masses of people was far worse than any affront against an individual. If human wellbeing is the focus of morality (a claim I have often heard from agnostic, non-Christians, and atheists), then to allow an action that could cause the eternal non-wellbeing of many is reprehensible.
> Deut. 22.28-29
You have to understand the economic culture of the ancient Near East. A man finds a young girl and rapes her. If he gets imprisoned, fined, or executed, she is still "damaged goods" for the rest of her life. She will probably never marry, never be economically secure, and be ignored and despised. Not fair, but that was their culture. Instead, the Bible provides for her. If the father and daughter agree to it, the rapist must marry her and provide for her all her life, without the possibility of divorce. If that's not what the father or daughter want, they can demand payment for the harm done, and she is then legally treated as a virgin. Her wellbeing underlies the legislation.
> 2 Chronicles 15.10-15
The influence of individuals to lead people away from God is the most dangerous kind of influence. It does not just result in temporary suffering, grief, pain, or loss, but has eternal consequences. It is the most insidious evil possible. In Matthew 10.28, we find that horror that only extends to the body is evil, but horror that extends to the soul is the worst kind of malevolence. Our souls are eternal.
> Lev. 24.10-16
This law is casuistic (hypothetical situations to teach principles). It is tied to the circumstances of the context and is not a general law. God's name is a representation of His Person, and blasphemy was the worst offense and immorality possible. An attempt to destroy God was worse than anything one could do to a person. Blasphemy that would affect the future destiny of others, possibly even generations, and by extension masses of people was far worse than any affront against an individual. If human wellbeing is the focus of morality (a claim I have often heard from agnostic, non-Christians, and atheists), then to allow an action that could cause the eternal non-wellbeing of many is reprehensible.
> Deut. 22.28-29
You have to understand the economic culture of the ancient Near East. A man finds a young girl and rapes her. If he gets imprisoned, fined, or executed, she is still "damaged goods" for the rest of her life. She will probably never marry, never be economically secure, and be ignored and despised. Not fair, but that was their culture. Instead, the Bible provides for her. If the father and daughter agree to it, the rapist must marry her and provide for her all her life, without the possibility of divorce. If that's not what the father or daughter want, they can demand payment for the harm done, and she is then legally treated as a virgin. Her wellbeing underlies the legislation.
> 2 Chronicles 15.10-15
The influence of individuals to lead people away from God is the most dangerous kind of influence. It does not just result in temporary suffering, grief, pain, or loss, but has eternal consequences. It is the most insidious evil possible. In Matthew 10.28, we find that horror that only extends to the body is evil, but horror that extends to the soul is the worst kind of malevolence. Our souls are eternal.