Board index ‹ Bible

[J Lord]

> 1.What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent? The right to fair trial

But the process set out to determine "guilt" is not a fair process or a fair trial. Modern society has arrived at several principles that are important to ensuring trials are as fair as possible. They were arrived at through hundreds of years of trial and error and legal debate. God did not provide this information, instead commanding people to follow an absurd spectacle that is unlikely to come to a reasonable conclusion.

> the wrongness of false testimony

But God does not demonstrate the wrongness of false testimony in a reasonable way. He says that someone falsely claiming to be a virgin should be stoned to death, while someone falsely claiming their wife isn't a virgin should be fined 100 shekels and be barred from ever getting a divorce. The punishments are unequal, unfair, and nonsensical.

> presentation of objective evidence

But the objective evidence he tells people to use is seriously flawed and is not reasonable evidence of the thing in question. Whether there is blood on a sheet tells us nothing about whose blood it is or how it got there. Evidence of a sheet with no blood on it is even more ridiculous to present as evidence. A person can obviously be a virgin without an intact hymen, can have sex without rupturing the hymen, or can rupture their hymen without any blood getting on any particular sheet.

God is for some reason setting up a ridiculous kangaroo court relying on unreasonable evidence that could result in a person being stoned to death. It is inconceivable to me that a supreme being could command something that is so obviously unreasonable and idiotic. I would suspect that if a book were written by a supreme being it wouldn't contain anything that seemed ok at the time but that humans would later go on to conclusively refute. Such content would be expected from a man made book however. Do you think my reasoning here makes sense?

[jimwalton]

No, I don't think your reasoning makes sense, and I'll explain. You are treating the Bible as if it's supposed to be a law record, explaining all the ins and outs, details and reasons. But it's not, so you're approaching it with the wrong glasses on. It's case law (an illustration of maybe what could happen), outlining possibilities and expressing intent (do whatever is necessary to establish guilt or innocence and act accordingly). In its casuistry, it gives principles and generic illustrations, expecting that mature judges will understand the intent and create laws accordingly, ruling over the community in fairness. You're upset because it doesn't explain enough; it doesn't try to. It gives the principles, and expects mature thought and process to fill in all the details.

If we return to Deut. 22.21-22, no specifications are given as to how to establish guilt. It asks for evidence proving guilt or innocence, that's all. And if she's guilty, she should be punished, and if innocent, acquitted. This is not a problem. It was up to the judges, accusers, defenders, and the community to establish reasonable ways to ascertain "virginity". "Fair process" is both implied and understood. God didn't provide the information. Instead the people are charged with figuring it out and doing it fairly.

> The punishments are unequal, unfair, and nonsensical.

The fine for the man was a fine for dishonesty and falsely impugning the character of the woman (slander). As to the punishment by death for adultery, as I mentioned, they lived in a different culture and by a different value system than we do. Our culture barely recognizes anything that should be called "sin", blows off all offenses to God, and mostly laughs at standards of sexual morality. So you are judging the text by a modern mindset.

As I mentioned, adultery was a capital crime in all the law codes of the ancient Near East. We're not told why, but a reasonable educated guess was that their society worked on the basis of inheritance, and it was necessary for social stability to be able to insure that one's children and heirs were actually one's own. Their financial system and land ownership was founded in paternity. Adultery was an attack on a man's household, stealing his rights to procreate, and endangering the orderly transmission of his estate to his heirs. Their culture was totally oriented to community values, and not to individual ones. The integrity of the woman's household was based on her ability to demonstrate proof of her virginity. The bloody sheets from the broken hymen were used as evidence that she was virginal. How else was one to tell in a culture where tampons had yet to be invented? As I said, though, even if a woman didn't bleed all over the wedding sheets, this is casuistic law, not hard-core guides. You're right that "A person can obviously be a virgin without an intact hymen, can have sex without rupturing the hymen, or can rupture their hymen without any blood getting on any particular sheet." They dealt with it. The woman could still plead her case with her evidences. Communities were often small, and the truth could be determined. You misunderstand what the text is for and what it's trying to tell us.

> God is for some reason setting up a ridiculous kangaroo court relying on unreasonable evidence that could result in a person being stoned to death

No it's not. These people weren't as stupid as you assume, or God's law as ridiculous as you accuse. The principles are solid: innocent until proved guilty, use of evidence and personal testimony, reasonable doubt, and varying punishments depending on the crime.

[TacoTaco]

Your very long comment did not address the biggest issue I brought up: "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"Set aside" is a pretty unambiguous phrase. It's not excusable by using the word "subsumed" or "superseded" or anything else. Jesus sternly warns against doing exactly what you're doing- teaching people that they can set aside the old law.

[jimwalton]

I'll try again. The most important function of the Law isn't as a judicial tool for society (as such, it is in many ways obsolete), but to reveal God's character (1 Pet. 1.13-15). When he was on earth, Jesus embodied those revelatory aspects of the old covenant. He revealed God more completely than the Law had, and therefore surpassed it. This doesn't mean the Sinai covenant or the Davidic covenant had been set aside or discarded, or even made obsolete. Rather, as instruments of revelation, they had been surpassed by a better and more clear revelation.

Now, you should know that the word you interpreted as "set aside" from Matt. 5.19 is the Greek root λύω, and it means a variety of things ("break, set free; loose; untie; tear down; destroy; dissolve," et al). So we're left to interpret what Jesus meant by it. In the NIV it is translated "breaks". It is thought here to have the idea of "bring to an end; abolish; repeal; annul; invalidate." The idea is still consistent with I said: Jesus did not repeal or annul the old covenant. He fulfilled it and surpassed it, superseding it but not abolishing it.

[TacoTaco]

Your re-translation just doesn't fit.

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

The word λύω can also mean "set aside". Whatever definition he's using for that word, the opposite is "practices and teaches". If the old law has been "destroyed" or "dissolved" or "superseded", then why did he say that you should still practice and teach the commands of the law?

Please demonstrate your interpretation by rewriting that verse and replace "sets aside" with any phrase of your choosing. But it will need to logically mesh with the second half the quote.

[jimwalton]

You are right that the verse defines two contrasting responses: one that sets aside the Law, and one that practices and teaches it. Jesus has been talking to and about the Pharisees as those who have been eroding the Law (dissolving it; setting it aside; nullifying it) by their hypocrisy. He is teaching that this behavior is not only unacceptable but sinful and should be deplored. The Law is still valid, but there is more, and it's not only in practicing and teaching. He goes on, then, in verses 21 and following, to illustrate what he means. He has not taken away the commandment to abhor adultery, but what is more, we should not even be lustful. He has not taken away the commandment to not murder, but what is more, we should watch our anger. In no case is the Law gone, but in every case there is more that has been revealed.

In presenting you with the Greek, I am not "re-translating". We're just discussing the text, trying to get at what it really means. My intent is not to win an argument, but to understand the truth of the text. The translation you proposed is fine. Jesus' point is that the Pharisees have been hypocritical in the way they chip away at the Law for their own advancement. Jesus is arguing that the Law must stand—and does stand, but there is far more that has been revealed. Jesus himself is there as the fulfillment of the Law and the full revelation of God.

[J Lord]

> If we return to Deut. 22.21-22, the specifications for how to establish innocence or guilt are not limited to what is written here.

But why would it specify one particular way that we know is not reliable?

> These people weren't as stupid as you assume, or God's law as ridiculous as you accuse.

Well, you seem to agree that if someone simply followed the procedure as specified in the text that it would result in injustice. So it's a good thing these people were smart enough not to follow it as written. I don't doubt that many people back then were smart enough to realize that following the text directly would result in injustice. So those wanting to point to the text as an authority had to come to a more complex interpretation than simply following what was written directly. But why would that be necessary if the book has a divine origin? Wouldn't you expect such a book to contain more wisdom than the people of the time such that nobody could improve upon it by deviating from the text as written?

> As I mentioned, adultery was a capital crime in all the law codes of the ancient Near East.

Do you think it should be crime today?

[jimwalton]

> But why would it specify one particular way that we know is not reliable?

As I mentioned, it's casuistic law, which is the principle form of law found through the ancient Near East. It's characterized by illustrations framed by an "if...then" clause, giving examples to the judges to guide the judicial system. For instance, the Ten Commandments just says something like "Do not steal." But then the case law goes on to explain, by means of "if...then" examples (not necessarily to be taken literally, but as a juridical guide), that a good judge takes into account such things as the intent of the thief and the value of what has been stolen. It's case law, not judicial code.

> But why would that be necessary if the book has a divine origin?

No Law book can contain every possible contingent. And remember that in those days writing was tedious and temporary. Chip it into rock? Inscribe it in clay? Pen and ink on damageable papyrus? Instead of every contingent, the ANE cultures wrote case law: examples to guide the judges. In Israel, the judges were expected to be godly people who sought God's wisdom and tried to do things in God's way, and so everything didn't need to be written.

> Wouldn't you expect such a book to contain more wisdom than the people of the time such that nobody could improve upon it by deviating from the text as written?

Actually the Bible differs in many and various ways from the "wisdom" of the cultures around it, so that by comparison, one could easily conclude that it did in fact contain more wisdom than the people of the time.

> Do you think it should be crime today?

No. I think it's still wrong, and very destructive to individuals, families, and the community and society at large, but I don't think it should be a crime.

[J Lord]

> But then the case law goes on to explain, by means of "if...then" examples (not necessarily to be taken literally, but as a juridical guide)

But wouldn't you expect that the "if..then" examples would at least be logical examples? For instance you wouldn't use an example to illustrate "do not steal" that didn't actually involve a theft. The example would at least have to make sense if the circumstances warranted following that example. To use the presence of absence of a bloody sheet as evidence of a person's virginity is illogical and will not produce correct answers.

> No Law book can contain every possible contingent.

But you could easily say more and give better information while also saying less. You could explain in general terms what the standards of evidence should be and apply these to all cases. This would seemingly be far more efficient than giving examples and hoping someone will draw these principles out.

> one could easily conclude that it did in fact contain more wisdom than the people of the time.

On what basis could you come to this conclusion?

> I don't think it should be a crime.

Do you think it should have been a crime then? If so, when did it change and why?

[jimwalton]

> But wouldn't you expect that the "if..then" examples would at least be logical examples?

It is a logical example. Adultery, unfortunately, is common place. But the question still remains, how does one, by evidence, determine virginity? As you said, hymens sometimes break for other reasons. How could we even determine virginity today? Is there a lab test for it? Even in Wikipedia, the test for virginity is a visual or digital inspection of the hymen, but that's assuming that the hymen can only be torn by sexual intercourse, which isn't necessarily true. Then it admits that the process is very controversial, and I would add quite unreliable. A bloody sheet is at least a reasonable starting point.

> But you could easily say more and give better information while also saying less.

So you're up to the challenge of doing it better—writing a better document? Well, I'm sure you have no intention of doing that, but I'll bet you when you were done, there would be some who would find fault with it. And don't you think your document would be a reflection of the culture *you* live in, using the terminology of *our* day, and subscribing to the mindset of our era? Of course it would. I think your complaint is basically unfounded. There *are* no reliable tests for virginity, not now and certainly not then. Examples are chosen that fit the terminology, culture, and mindset of the day—that's to be expected. And we are left to be reasonable and wise people, to interpret well and live well. This is not really a problem.

> On what basis could you come to this conclusion?

Generally speaking the Biblical laws treat women as people, not "extras", and builds in many protective elements in their laws for the protection of women who are mistreated by their husbands or by others. The Bible also builds in far more protections for slaves than the surrounding cultures do. Though it's not evident in this particular text, the Bible also doesn't allow maiming for crimes as the surrounding cultures did, and it doesn't make exceptions for people of high social or economic status. In all of these senses it stands head and shoulders above its neighbors.

> Do you think it should have been a crime then? If so, when did it change and why?

That's not mine to say. Their world was very different from ours. Their culture was built on the community, not the individual; the collapse of the family meant the collapse of society; the protection of the paternal line was not only important but supreme in the passing on of the land of one's heritage that was necessary for survival in their world. I'm in no position to judge what was essential to maintain order, morality, stability, and survival in their world. We can only study and interpret.

When did it change? That's something I don't know. It's apparent that it was still assumed in the time of Jesus (Jn. 8.1-11), but I'm pretty sure we don't have a single historical example of something actually being stoned for adultery (I may be wrong, of course).

Why did it change? I would say that notions of order, stability, morality, and survival changed. As you know, culture is fluid, and forces for change always campaign against forces for preservation. Whether right or wrong, so goes society to its benefit and detriment. All adaptations have their pros and cons. There are as many forces for an avant garde world as for a traditional one. I know from my experiences that adultery is a destructive activity, not a favorable one. Despite the loosening of many sexual conventions (without making a value statement here), adultery continues to be injurious. While I don't think people should be killed for it, I certainly understand the strong arm ancient governments took against it, especially in what I understand about their world.