by jimwalton » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:55 am
Sure. This paragraph divides into two parts: a primary case involving a false accusation (vv. 13-19), and a counter-case in which the charges prove to be true (20-21).
1. What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent? The right to fair trial, the wrongness of false testimony, slander leading to injustice, protection of the innocent from false accusations, wife abuse, the right of defense, the right to a public hearing, presentation of objective evidence, public discipline, protecting the honor of the innocent, the economic protection of victims, and the punishment of the guilty.
2. What change in society would this law achieve if it were followed? Justice fairly exercised.
3. What kind of situation made this law necessary or desirable? People abuse each other. People use their power to suppress and oppress others. People use their connections, money, networks, and positions to get what they want, and not often in a fair, peaceful, or just way. The Bible deplores such abuse.
4. What kind of person would benefit from this law, by assistance or protection? Primarily the innocent, those without financial, social and personal resources. In a word: the underdogs. The victims who are unfairly treated by the stronger and more powerful.
5. What kind of person would be restrained or restricted by this law, and why? The users and abusers, the strong and powerful who use their position and influence to perpetrate injustice.
6. What values are given priority in this law? Whose needs or rights are upheld? The right to a fair, public trial; honesty; protection of the innocent; the right of defense; the requirement of evidence, economic compensation; just punishment for the guilty.
7. In what way does this law reflect what we know from elsewhere in the Bible about the character of God and his plans for human life? Briefly, it endorses the value of human life, the requirement of a just and moral society, the protection of the innocent, the cessation of oppression by power, position, or money, and the intent of true justice to bring about a righteous community.
8. What principle or principles does this law embody? Uh, all of the above.
My sense, despite all this, is your hidden agenda that stoning for adultery (both man and woman, vv. 21-22) is barbaric. John Walton comments: Why is adultery a capital crime? The text never explains, but it was a capital crime in all of the law codes from the ancient Near East. We could speculate that paternity is far more important in the clan identity culture of the ancient world. We could infer that they were following the general trend in the ANE. Capital punishment is a way society responds to those acts that pose the most significant threats to the dissolution of society and its destruction. Stoning was a particular response by which society corporately responded on behalf of society ("society" was wronged more than a particular individual). None of these will make much sense in modern contexts, but they don't have to. There is no reason to claim that our society needs to be structured the way theirs is, or that our punishments should be the same. If someone is concerned about the justice of God (which I suspect what is riding under your question), God's justice in many cases in the OT is relative to how the culture itself is shaped and what its values are, though not in any case reflecting something that is inappropriate to His character (God values honesty, commitment, keeping of vows, and faithfulness).
Sarah Ruden adds, for the sake of our curiosity, "There is no detailed scene of stoning in any ancient literature." So we don't know if Israel ever stoned an adulteress. There is no record of such.
We can talk more about this in specific if you would like.