Board index ‹ Morality

[Squonk]

> the Torah is not legislation.

“Torah” literally means “law.” It’s also referred to as the “Mosaic Law.” For the Israelites, it absolutely was legislation.

[jimwalton]

"Torah" has a variety of uses.

* Even in the Old Testament, and throughout the history of Judaism, Torah has been used to described the first five books of the Old Testament (Josh. 1.8; 8.31, 34; 2 Ki. 14.6).
* Torah is a technical term for ancient legal literature (what was given at Sinai, what regulates the purity system in Leviticus, and what the Israelites were expected to live by).
* Torah is also used in connection to proverbial sayings where it refers to instruction, for instance, that given by parents to children.

To correct your definition, "Torah" literally means "instruction." There is no Hebrew word for "law". Ancient societies are not legislative societies. There is nothing like codified, prescriptive legislation coming to us from the ancient world. They had legal saying, but it's more like legal wisdom than legislation. In Israel the Torah is a covenant agreement between the suzerain (God) and His vassals (Israel). It was not legislation, and it didn't offer an ideal social structure. The point was to establish a reputation for YHWH as the patron of order. It addressed how the Israelite people should maintain their culture's concept of order in a vassal relationship with their deity. It functions effectively as an ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaty. It is aspective, not comprehensive, and the intention is instruction in wisdom, not legislation.

[Joel Blazing Pants]

> No, not so. We generally regard law as prescriptive legislation set down in legal documents to serve as precedents that expects obedience and conformity as a response. We look at it as a systematic collection of rules to guide future decisions. This was not at all the perspective of the ancient world. Instead, they were to them collections of the king's wisdom (such as Hammurabi or Solomon) to show how wise the king was in the thoughts of their deity. They were generally set down as examples of some of the verdicts this particular king gave to show what a wise king he was in establishing the order of the gods. It's a completely different mindset and purpose than "laws."
​
Deuteronomy 12 opens with "These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess—as long as you live in the land"
​
The chapters following this are a continuation of this title.
​
So on today's episode of "The Bible doesn't say what it says"....
​
> First of all, as has already been stated, these are not laws; they are not legislation. The writer is giving legal wisdom (not actual cases) so a judge can gain wisdom from it and render a decision.
​
So have you actually read the bible, or just the things the church tells you to read?
​
> Dt. 22.13-30 is divided into 2 parts: the first involving a false accusation and the second (vv. 20-21) a true accusation. You can see that the judge is already being guided. The law involves procedures similar to our modern ones: procuring evidence, a public hearing, calling witnesses, considering intent and motive, and rendering a decision with an appropriate sentence.
​
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill, there was no trial, the defense was that the father needs to bring in the woman's bloodied sheets from her torn hymen, if she could not do that, she was guilty.
​
> There is no attempt to defend a guilty woman in vv. 20-21; the first section, however, goes to great lengths to protect an innocent woman from false accusation against an abusive husband or trump-up charges.
​
Great lengths include giving her a chance to bring some bloodied sheets or die. You are aware that the hymen doesn't always tear for a girl's first time right? If a girl was one of the unlucky ones, she would be executed even though she was innocent.
​
Real protections for the innocent right there.
​
> The intent was to rehabilitate the man while protecting the woman. After having been publicly shamed (now everyone in town knows he's a sexual offender), he is forced to take her in, care for her, and assume husbandly responsibilities.
​
But if the woman is guilty, she doesn't get rehabilitated, she gets death. It's funny that there is no bible verse requiring a MAN to be a virgin or die....but yeah, this is all about protections for the woman.
​
> After having been publicly shamed (now everyone in town knows he's a sexual offender), he is forced to take her in, care for her, and assume husbandly responsibilities. The townspeople will be watching him.
​
None of the scripture says this is a public affair, outside of stoning the woman. You're altering scripture...that's a deadly sin right there.
​
> If the charges are true (vv. 20-21, the verses to which you are referring), they are executed. Adultery was a capital crime in the ancient Near East. We are not told why, but it was a widespread cultural practice. We can speculate that adultery was a threat to family life, and therefore the community at large, as well as a complicating factor in inheritances. It also destroyed order in the community.
​
If God called for it, it must be good! But don't do what God does, it's not like he's viewed as a standard or anything.
​
> She is not required to marry the rapist. It is a decision the father and daughter make together. Nor will she be executed if she refuses. Wow. She is the innocent victim and is to be treated as such.
​
She wouldn't be executed for marrying the rapist, she'd be executed for trying to marry someone else and not being a virgin. She has had her life's happiness stripped away from her completely, man, you are completely ignoring the damn scripture, it's rather annoying, to be honest.
​
> I don't remember having this particular discussion with you before, but if we did, I'm disappointed that an actual correct exegesis of the text doesn't sway your distorted interpretations, but that you persist in them despite the evidence and accurate information. If correct information doesn't change your mind, perhaps continuing the discussion is fruitless.
​
"Your honor, I know the evidence points to him being guilty, but at the same point in time, when I add completely irrelevant and baseless information to the evidence, it's no longer pointing to where it was so therefore, he isn't guilty!"
​
Right.

[jimwalton]

> Deuteronomy 12 opens with "These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess—as long as you live in the land"

We have assumptions about what law is and how it works that are different from the mindset, definitions, and worldview of the ancient Near East. The ancients were more interested in order than legislation. They were not inclined to make laws (as we are and do) to regulate everyday life in society. Instead of relying on legislation, order was achieved through the wisdom of those who governed society. We use law prescriptively (legislation expecting obedience, conformity, and civility as a response). They used law descriptively (instruction based on cultural wisdom). The ancient (what we call) "law codes" were collections of legal wisdom. We are being anachronistic if we claim they looked at law the way we do.

So, we know how WE look at what "decrees" and "laws" are, but what did that mean to THEM? Neither of the terms refer to codified legislation. They had no such thing in their culture. The "decrees" are dictates given by a formal authority (such as a king). The "laws" are verdicts that were given in legal contexts. But neither of them describes legislation, but rather descriptive legal wisdom.

> So have you actually read the bible, or just the things the church tells you to read?

This is actually quite funny, though I guess you would have no way of knowing that. You have no idea who I am, but let me assure, you: I've read the Bible and studied it *deeply*.

> Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill, there was no trial, the defense was that the father needs to bring in the woman's bloodied sheets from her torn hymen, if she could not do that, she was guilty.

See, you're thinking of the text as legislation, not wisdom. The judge would have taken every other piece of the Torah into consideration as he tries to decide wisely. The Torah instructs him in wisdom, it doesn't give him books of previous legislation to memorize and use as precedents. That's OUR world, not his. The Torah is full of: look at the evidence, listen to testimony, etc.

> Great lengths include giving her a chance to bring some bloodied sheets or die.

As I've said many times, this isn't legislation. This is legal wisdom instructing the judge to pay attention to the evidence and listen to the testimony.

> You are aware that the hymen doesn't always tear for a girl's first time right?

Of course..Duh. There are also occasions that break the hymen before one's first sexual encounter. The point is to examine the evidence. This is neither apomictic law nor legislation.

> But if the woman is guilty, she doesn't get rehabilitated, she gets death. It's funny that there is no bible verse requiring a MAN to be a virgin or die....but yeah, this is all about protections for the woman.

It's true that they believed that in a system of true justice, the innocent were acquitted and the guilty were punished. That's the whole point.

There are plenty of verses that require death for the male. Lev. 20.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, oh and dozens more. Have you ever read the Bible, or do you just know what you find on websites?

> None of the scripture says this is a public affair, outside of stoning the woman. You're altering scripture...that's a deadly sin right there.

Every trial in the ancient world was a public affair. The king would sit at the city gate, and the elders would sit on benches near him. There they would regulate traffic in and out of the city (taxes, tariffs) and also judge cases (as we see in Ruth 4.1-12 and other places).

> She wouldn't be executed for marrying the rapist, she'd be executed for trying to marry someone else and not being a virgin.

Oh, my, please read the Bible.

[Imama IQ]

I'm missing whatever distinction you're trying to make about it not being "law" as we think of law. God told them to do these things, and said they'd be rewarded for such behaviors, but from a modern perspective that's rewarding some pretty awful stuff. This has nothing to do with courts and whatever else we associate with a legal system today, but it's still an endorsement and a promise to reward things that (from a modern perspective) are horrifying.

Taking a step back, what you seem to be doing is arguing for moral relativism. I can agree that given the deeply awful views on women and their role in society that were prevalent at the time a woman being forced to marry her rapist was relatively better than, say, being killed for being a rape victim. And as you say, calling it awful and horrifying is definitely the result of looking at their culture from a modern point of view, because from a modern point of view it's built on a foundation that includes deeply offensive attitudes toward women.

But arguing that it wasn't so bad, relatively speaking, in the context of that culture and prevailing views of women at the time, works better in support of OP's argument than as a refutation of it.

BTW, why couldn't God have told them they were wrong to view women that way? Or that the rapist should be forced to pay the 50 shekels and support the victim for the rest of her life, without being allowed to continue raping her?

[jimwalton]

> I'm missing whatever distinction you're trying to make about it not being "law" as we think of law.

We think of law as legislation to be read, memorized, used as precedents to guide future decisions. We have shelves and shelves of books to be consulted and used to argue cases and manipulate decisions.

In the ancient world there was no such thing. They would find the smartest person(s) in the town and expect to use all his wisdom to make the best decisions, regardless of what was done before. He was never expected to read books and examine previous cases. He was supposed to use his head to do what was right. The judge would ask for evidence, call for witnesses and testimony, probably ask the questions himself, and make a decision based on what was the right thing to do.

What we have written in the Bible isn't law (legislation) but law (wisdom). A judge in Israel was expected to read the Bible to gain wisdom (Prov. 1.2-7), and then use his head to render verdicts.

> God told them to do these things, and said they'd be rewarded for such behaviors, but from a modern perspective that's rewarding some pretty awful stuff.

We'd have to talk about these in more specifics than "some pretty awful stuff." Usually I have found in these conversations that they are based on misunderstandings of the culture and the biblical text. But we can talk about whatever you want.

> what you seem to be doing is arguing for moral relativism.

Not in the least. Just to be clear, I believe in objective morality, and I don't believe in moral relativism.

> But arguing that it wasn't so bad, relatively speaking, in the context of that culture and prevailing views of women at the time, works better in support of OP's argument than as a refutation of it.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't so bad, relatively speaking. What I'm arguing is that in their culture, this was seen as a wonderful thing. In ours, well, we're upset. But our culture and worldview are radically different than hers was. We can't judge their culture by ours.

For instance, people nowadays accuse the missionaries of being awful for having the tribeswomen put on shirt to cover their nakedness. The accusation is, "That was their culture. Leave them be. What's wrong with it?" But then we get to a case like this, and we say, "Their culture was different, but it was awful and we're being morally relativistic not to change their culture." But wait a minute. That's a double standard. Was their culture valid for them, or wasn't it? It's not our place to judge their culture.

> Or that the rapist should be forced to pay the 50 shekels and support the victim for the rest of her life, without being allowed to continue raping her?

See how difficult it is to get our heads into a different worldview. You are judging them, assuming their marriage is "allowed to continue raping her." I told you that the father and daughter (with the judge) would together decide whether not to marry him or not, and what the verdict would be. If they all agreed that marriage was the best choice, than "a life of being raped" is not an accurate depiction.

By the way, just for interest's sake, 50 shekels wasn't chump change. An average annual wage was about 10 shekels. So a 50-shekel fine is about 5 years' salary, which in our society for most middle-class workers (just to get an idea) would be in the range of a fine of $250,000-$300,000. Ouch.

[Shazzam]

> No, if you've studied the text (if you actually have), you'll see this is the way it is interpreted.

Yes. I attended seminary. If I learnt anything from my study of the bible it is that people can, and often do, interpret the bible in vastly different, often entirely contradictory, ways.

> Your comments make me think you haven't; you've possibly just read it superficially.

Once again, how have you determined that your particular interpretation of the bible is correct?

> In our day, this is not a suitable arrangement, but this was not written to us. In their world, this was very affirming and protective of women.

A law that can force a woman to marry her rapist is protective towards woman? Just when I think I have heard it all...

> They would look at this as a tremendous boon...

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that a woman who is forced to marry her rapist would not see it as a tremendous boon...

> Since the primary way women achieved financial and social security was through marriage, a rape victim would often end up impoverished.

Yes because woman were treated as the property of their fathers if they were raped they lost their value. So what did your God think was the best way to solve this problem? Allow the rapist to marry the daughter to ensure the father didn't lose out. Absolutely fantastic idea!

> The father and the daughter would.

Where exactly does the bible say this?

> There's more about these things in Exodus 22.16-17.

Those two verses simply describe how a man must pay the father the 'bride price' if he sleeps with his daughter. It is just reaffirming the notion that is continuously espoused throughout the bible that women are property.

[jimwalton]

> Yes. I attended seminary.

Good, well then you have a good understanding that a text like this is not divergently interpreted.

> Once again, how have you determined that your particular interpretation of the bible is correct?

Linguistics, grammar, cultural knowledge, historical context, context of Pentateuch, hermeneutical principles, conferring the commentaries—normal stuff.

> A law that can force a woman to marry her rapist is protective towards woman? Just when I think I have heard it all...

If you've studied the ancient world, which now I can assume you have, then you know it was a very different cultural context and worldview than our own. A woman's security was in her family status and her economic situation, and to grant her both by marriage was one of the highest values in their culture. And since the father and daughter could decide, along with the judge, whether or not to follow through with such a marriage, they would only enter that relationship if it were considered to be an advantage to her.

> Yes because woman were treated as the property of their fathers if they were raped they lost their value.

Yes, that's correct. We think it's a lousy worldview, but it was theirs and they accepted it. She was ruined if raped without marriage; she could have a meaningful life, if they so decided, by entering into marriage.

> So what did your God think was the best way to solve this problem? Allow the rapist to marry the daughter to ensure the father didn't lose out. Absolutely fantastic idea!

God thought that the best way to solve the problem is to punish the man, treat the woman with dignity and rights, and pave the way for her social acceptance and economic security. Absolutely fantastic idea!

> Where exactly does the bible say this?

Ex. 22.16-17 is the backdrop for this teaching, and it says so there. But you'll notice even in the context of this passage that the father and mother are involved in the proceedings (Dt. 22.15, 16, 17, 19, 21). These judgments all involve the parents, evidence, and testimony. It was true all over the ancient Near East (the Law of Ur-Nammu, the law of Eshunna)— a cultural understanding and common worldview.

> Ex. 22.16-17.

All of the texts work together to guide a judge about how to be wise.

> It is just reaffirming the notion that is continuously espoused throughout the bible that women are property.

In general, this is incorrect. Women were considered to be the property of their fathers, but not in the sense of chattel. She was considered his property because she was an economic asset to the household, and there had to be economic recompense when she married and moved out. But we're not to think she was treated as chattel. Once married, they were considered to be an extension of the husband, but not his property. (Other cultures did consider them property, but not the Bible.)

So you're quite wrong that it "is continuously espoused throughout the bible that women are property."

[Imama IQ]

> I'm not arguing that it wasn't so bad, relatively speaking. What I'm arguing is that in their culture, this was seen as a wonderful thing. In ours, well, we're upset. But our culture and worldview are radically different than hers was. We can't judge their culture by ours.

You say you're not arguing for moral relativism, but they you say "we can't judge their culture by ours" and that what matters is that within their culture it could be viewed as good even if from the point of view of our culture it was horrifying. But if that's not describing moral relativism, what is it?

And "Was their culture valid for them, or wasn't it? It's not our place to judge their culture." I'm sure I'm missing your point in some simple way, but if certain behaviors could be good in their culture but bad in ours then how is that reconciled with your moral objectivism? Are they both right, in a culturally relative way?

Again, the only reason that the woman could arguably (and I don't buy it, but arguably since you're arguing it) find it "wonderful" to be married to the guy who raped her is that the culture was horrifyingly f-ed up in the way they viewed women. It's only "good" relative to an even more messed up alternative, like her being put to death for not being a virgin even though she was the victim.

[jimwalton]

> You say you're not arguing for moral relativism, but they you say "we can't judge their culture by ours" and that what matters is that within their culture it could be viewed as good even if from the point of view of our culture it was horrifying. But if that's not describing moral relativism, what is it?

The miscommunication seems to be that I'm not calling this event as a moral issue. That he raped her is a moral issue, for sure. But what the family and the judges decide to do about it is a legal and cultural issue. If they go for marriage or not marriage, bride price or fine, those are legal, social, and cultural decisions, not moral ones. The immorality has already happened (the rape). Now we must decide what is the wisest course to pursue subsequent to the tragedy. That's not a moral question as much as it is a juridical one.

> Again, the only reason that the woman could arguably (and I don't buy it, but arguably since you're arguing it) find it "wonderful" to be married to the guy who raped her is that the culture was horrifyingly f-ed up in the way they viewed women. It's only "good" relative to an even more messed up alternative, like her being put to death for not being a virgin even though she was the victim.

As I've been saying all along, this is a bias of "presentism": our culture sees it right and does it right, and all other cultures were f-ed up. It's also ethnocentric, and therefore skewed. We're looking more than 3000 years backwards into a completely different mindset (community of their culture vs. individualism of our culture, honor & shame (theirs) vs. guilt (ours), order vs. (oh, many things here part of our culture), interdependence vs. autonomy, responsibilities vs. rights, and this list goes on for a long time. We can hardly see through the eyes of their culture, our worldview is SOOOO radically different. We can't help but look through through the lens of our cultural river, but it has virtually nothing in common with theirs.

In their culture, most of the towns were small residential conglomerates of a collection of families. People generally knew each other. (For that matter, the whole country of Israel was only about the size of New Jersey). Marriage was more often a financial arrangement than a romantic one. Love and feelings were not fundamental to the system. Marriage was a way of establishing a relationship between families more than it was between individuals. People didn't prioritize freedom of choice for individuals. Marriage was about family mergers, financial security, and community order. We have troubled putting our heads around ANY of this.

A rape (even as now), was more often done by an acquaintance or family member—someone in the village—than by a stranger. With all this in mind, she would be requited by being set up with marriage and money, not f-ed up. This is a protection for her, not a punishment. We have to look at it in their cultural river.