Blood Atonement

[_beastie]

I forgot to mention another interesting aspect of Old Testament law - women seemed to be the primary focus of extreme punishment for sexual sins.

Or take this one, speaking of disproportionate punishment - Deut. 25:11 - When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets, Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Or how about the "test" for a women whose husband suspects her of adultery?

Numbers 5:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, 13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; 14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: 15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord: 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: 19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: 20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband: 21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, [1] and thy belly to swell; 22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. 23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water: 24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter. 25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the Lord, and offer it upon the altar: 26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water. 27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. 29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; 30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. 31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

Or that there was a virginity requirement for women upon marriage, upon pain of death, but no such requirement for men?

A man could RAPE a woman and the woman would be put to death:

Deut22:28-29

22:23 If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

If the UNmarried woman was raped where no one could hear her cry, her life would be spared:

22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her.

If an unmarried woman was raped, her life was spared but she was forced to marry the rapist:

22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

[_Fortigurn]

I forgot to mention another interesting aspect of Old Testament law - women seemed to be the primary focus of extreme punishment for sexual sins.

Such as?

Or take this one, speaking of disproportionate punishment - Deut. 25:11 - When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets, Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

What's disproportionate about that?

Or how about the "test" for a women whose husband suspects her of adultery?

What about it? It's clearly non-lethal. In the majority of situations it wouldn't even be harmful.

Or that there was a virginity requirement for women upon marriage, upon pain of death, but no such requirement for men?

Newsflash, it's not possible to test a man for virginity.

A man could RAPE a woman and the woman would be put to death:

Deut22:28-29

22:23 If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

This is consensual sex, and says nothing about rape. Later on you're going to tell me that when a woman is raped she has to marry her rapist, so you have to get straight which argument you're going to make - is the woman put to death, or made to marry her rapist?

If the UNmarried woman was raped where no one could hear her cry, her life would be spared:

Don't you think that's a good idea? Automatic presumption of innocence for the woman, if she has sex in a remote area - but the man bears the burden of guilt, and the woman's accusation of rape is all that is required to convict him.

If an unmarried woman was raped, her life was spared but she was forced to marry the rapist:

22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

This uses a different word to the word for rape earlier in the chapter. This is not rape.

[_beastie]

You can't be serious. Cutting off a woman's hand for trying to help her husband in a fight if she touches the other man's testicles isn't disproportionate?

What in the heck are you thinking?????

by the way, the scripture I cited made it plain that the woman would be put to death for NOT CRYING OUT. Why should she have cried out? She was raped.

Newsflash, it's not possible to test a man for virginity.

And this means there can be no requirement of virginity upon marriage?

Don't you think that's a good idea? Automatic presumption of innocence for the woman, if she has sex in a remote area - but the man bears the burden of guilt, and the woman's accusation of rape is all that is required to convict him.

The presumption of innocence is ONLY if they are in an isolated area where none could hear.


The difference between whether or not a woman was put to death for being raped and NOT crying out was whether or not she was already the property of another man, Fort. She was forced to marry her rapist if she wasn't already married. The scripture makes that plain.

[_Fortigurn]

You can't be serious. Cutting off a woman's hand for trying to help her husband in a fight if she touches the other man's testicles isn't disproportionate?

What in the heck are you thinking?????

I'm sorry, where does it say 'if she touches the other man's testicles'? It's not talking about her accidentally brushing up against his scrotum while trying to do her bit for her husband, it's talking about her attacking the man by crushing his testicles in her hand. No big deal for you maybe, but you're not a man.

by the way, the scripture I cited made it plain that the woman would be put to death for NOT CRYING OUT. Why should she have cried out? She was raped.

No, she didn't cry out because it wasn't rape.

And this means there can be no requirement of virginity upon marriage?

Clearly there was, because extra-marital sex on the part of the man was punished with death. But it means there's no meaningful test for virginity which you can give a man. Fact of life.

The presumption of innocence is ONLY if they are in an isolated area where none could hear.

But you object to it. Why?

The difference between whether or not a woman was put to death for being raped and NOT crying out was whether or not she was already the property of another man, Fort. She was forced to marry her rapist if she wasn't already married. The scripture makes that plain.

Well I would expect you to read it that way.

[_beastie]

Fort

What is your rhyme or reason for deciding what could or could not be part of a valid theocracy?

[_Fortigurn]

The Bible. According to the Bible, the only valid theocracy existed within the Jewish faith community, from the time that they were inaugurated as a nation at Sinai, to the last of the prophets (around the late Persian era).

Since that time, there has been no valid theocracy, neither within the Jewish faith community nor anywhere else. Furthermore, it was revealed that no valid theocracy would ever exist again, until the theocracy established by the Messiah.

[_beastie]

No, you're not just using the Bible. A couple of times in the interaction we had above regarding specific verses, you chose to interpret it in a different way than I interpreted the verse.

For example, you chose to interpret the "testicle grab" as an actual crush. There's nothing in the verse to indicate that. It could just be a 'grab'. You're making choices about how to interpret specific verses, just like everyone does. You chose to interpret one verse to mean "not rape" although the very next verse talks about how the female's innocence is only presumed in an ISOLATED setting where no one could HEAR her. You decided that the fact of not crying out meant "not rape". Well, it doesn't. It sometimes means "frozen in fear".

This is always the problem with relying on the Bible. Although some people protest otherwise, everyone interprets it.

[_Fortigurn]

No, you're not just using the Bible. A couple of times in the interaction we had above regarding specific verses, you chose to interpret it in a different way than I interpreted the verse.

Because I was taking into account the cultural background, the language, and the relevant textual data. That doesn't mean I'm not just using the Bible, it means I am using the Bible properly.

For example, you chose to interpret the "testicle grab" as an actual crush. There's nothing in the verse to indicate that. It could just be a 'grab'.

Every meaning within the semantic domain of that verb has to do with strength, rigidity, or hardening. The meanings include 'strengthen', 'to prevail', 'caught fast', 'make strong', 'make rigid', 'harden', 'be severe', 'be grievous', and 'hold strongly'. Is this saying anything to you? Do you think, given the semantic domain of the verb, it just might have to do with the woman reaching out to clutch the man's testicles strongly, with a view to harming him in order to save her husband?

Just what do you think she's doing grabbing at the privates of her husband's antagonist? She's not exactly going to help her husband by stroking his enemies bits, is she? If this was a verse about a man clutching at a woman's privates, would you choose to interpret it harmlessly?

You're making choices about how to interpret specific verses, just like everyone does.

Of course everyone does. The question is whether or not one does with the relevant cultural, linguistic, and textual data.

You chose to interpret one verse to mean "not rape" although the very next verse talks about how the female's innocence is only presumed in an ISOLATED setting where no one could HEAR her. You decided that the fact of not crying out meant "not rape". Well, it doesn't. It sometimes means "frozen in fear".

You're making the assumption that I don't interpret it as rape because she didn't cry out. On the contrary, I said she didn't cry out because it wasn't rape. How do I know it wasn't rape? Because the man didn't 'force' her (different words used here), he found her in the city and lay with her (same language as used of a husband with his wife, or an adulterer with someone else's spouse, it just means have sex with). It says nothing about her being forced.

This is always the problem with relying on the Bible. Although some people protest otherwise, everyone interprets it.

Of course everyone interprets it. That's what you do when you read text - you interpret it.

[_beastie]

Yes, you interpret it. People interpret the Bible differently, even considering the background context. This is particularly true when discussing what the Bible means for today, or the future. You apparently believe the Bible says there will be no valid theocracy until Christ returns. Mormons believe differently. The Bible is very open to interpretation. God didn't communicate with 100% clarity there, either.

Since I have insomnia, I'm going to respond more to your interpretation of these particular verses that help us understand what a "valid" theocracy looked like.

The verses about how to tell if a wife has been faithful - your response was "so what, it wouldn't be lethal, or 'in most situations', harmful." You're missing the point. This was the test to see if the wife was guilty of adultery. Forcing the woman to drink "bitter water", uttering some sort of curse, and then, if she's guilty, her belly will swell, her thighs will rot, and I suppose she'll be put to death for adultery. This is what a valid theocracy looks like?

You claim that this verse was not about rape, but consensual sex:

22:23 If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

You discount this: because she cried not, being in the city;

You say she didn't cry because it wasn't rape. If it wasn't rape, why insert the part about crying out, and why differentiate between the city and the isolated fields? If the difference between the two scenarios is just consensual sex versus rape, these differentiations make no sense.

You say that the testicle verse is about "crushing" a man's testicles. Your words imply that the woman has somehow physically crushed the testicles and this justifies cutting her hand off. Think about the context of the situation. Two men are fighting, the women intervenes to try to help her husband. Just how is she going to be able to actually crush the opponent's testicles with her hands? The most she could do, in the middle of a fight, is to try and grab them.

There are so many other examples, I'm sure you're aware of them. Speaking of slavery earlier, the "valid theocracy" allowed slavery:

Leviticus 25:44-46 (King James Version)

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Hebrew slaves were allowed but could be treated thusly:

Exodus 21:2-6 (King James Version)
2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

How about this scenario?

Exodus 21:7-11 (King James Version)

7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

More on how to treat slaves:

Exodus 21:20-21
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Or how about the "valid theocracy's" version of match.com?

Judges 21:10-24

10And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.

11And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.

12And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

13And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them.

14And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabeshgilead: and yet so they sufficed them not.

15And the people repented them for Benjamin, because that the LORD had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.

16Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?

17And they said, There must be an inheritance for them that be escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel.

18Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters: for the children of Israel have sworn, saying, Cursed be he that giveth a wife to Benjamin.

19Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the LORD in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.

20Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards;

21And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

22And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.

23And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught: and they went and returned unto their inheritance, and repaired the cities, and dwelt in them.

24And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

10When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

11And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

12And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

More on how to find wives:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

10When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

11And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

12Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

14And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Yeah, let her mourn her family that you just killed. Give her a month to get over it. Then you get to have her as a wife. If she doesn't please you, let her go. (go where?)

Let's look forward to the Lord leading his theocracy again:

Zechariah 14

1Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Fort,

I do agree you should consider the context of these statements. The context is that these were brutal, warring tribes, each of which believed their God or Gods blessed and led them.

[_Fortigurn]

Yes, you interpret it.

That's what I said. Everyone interprets a text. We cannot do otherwise. It's the process by which we derive meaning from a text.

You apparently believe the Bible says there will be no valid theocracy until Christ returns.

Yep.

Mormons believe differently.

Well of course. But they don't exactly use the Bible, do they?

The verses about how to tell if a wife has been faithful - your response was "so what, it wouldn't be lethal, or 'in most situations', harmful." You're missing the point. This was the test to see if the wife was guilty of adultery. Forcing the woman to drink "bitter water", uttering some sort of curse, and then, if she's guilty, her belly will swell, her thighs will rot, and I suppose she'll be put to death for adultery. This is what a valid theocracy looks like?

If you read the text, you will see that she is not put to death for adultery. The effects of the curse are the punishment. I gather your actual objection is to a test designed to determine whether or not women have committed adultery?

You discount this: because she cried not, being in the city;

I didn't discount it.

You say she didn't cry because it wasn't rape. If it wasn't rape, why insert the part about crying out, and why differentiate between the city and the isolated fields? If the difference between the two scenarios is just consensual sex versus rape, these differentiations make no sense.

The differentiation is provided very clearly by the difference in location, and by the non-use of force in the first case, as opposed to the use of force in the second. The very fact that in the latter case there was no way at all to prove that the woman cried out, is evidence that this is not the means by which the two are differentiated.

Go and read the first case again. A man meets a woman in the city, and they lie together. It explicitly states that she doesn't cry out, and there's no mention of force. This is a consensual case. It's not a matter of him breaking into her house, he met her in the city.

You say that the testicle verse is about "crushing" a man's testicles. Your words imply that the woman has somehow physically crushed the testicles and this justifies cutting her hand off. Think about the context of the situation. Two men are fighting, the women intervenes to try to help her husband. Just how is she going to be able to actually crush the opponent's testicles with her hands? The most she could do, in the middle of a fight, is to try and grab them.

Ok, I've thought about the context. Exactly what is it about this situation which you believe justifies the woman reaching out and crushing a man's testicles? You ask 'Just how is she going to be able to actually crush the opponent's testicles with her hands?', and I reply 'Extremely easily'. You only need one hand, hey only a few fingers, in order to do immediate and irreparable damage to the testes, whilst causing extreme pain.

You say 'The most she could do, in the middle of a fight, is to try and grab them', but for goodness' sake beastie, what on earth is she trying to grab the man's testicles for? You cannot surely avoid the fact that she's attempting to do him a serious injury, and aiming specifically at that part which is most vulnerable and which will cause the greatest amount of pain and damage with the least amount of force. She isn't trying gentle persuasion and modern counselling techniques, is she?

Again, if this passage talked about a man reaching out for a woman's privates, would you read it as sympathetically?

There are so many other examples, I'm sure you're aware of them. Speaking of slavery earlier, the "valid theocracy" allowed slavery:

Some of the passages you quote refer to indentured service rather than slavery, but yes, both were allowed. I don't have a problem with that, especially since a slave who wished to leave his master's service could simply run away, and was fully protected by the Law if he did so. In fact if he did so, the Law specifically stated that he not to be returned to his master, was not to be ill treated, and was to be left free to live where he pleased (Deuteronomy 23:15). For a detailed study of Old Testament slavery and indentured service, see here.

How about this scenario?

How about it? It's indentured service with a marriage contract, and describes the legal protection of the daughter entering into the service, in case of breach of contract. What precisely is the issue?

More on how to treat slaves:

Yes, that's right, a man who kills his servant is liable to the death penalty (unlike the proximate Law of Hammurabi), unless in case of manslaughter.

Or how about the "valid theocracy's" version of match.com?

Er, that was not a theocratically ordained or sanctioned action. If you read the text, you'll find it was a very bad plan thought up by a group of tribes after an very much unsanctioned civil war, in a shoddy attempt to solve a depopulation problem caused by the war.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Offer peace terms to a city, and attack only if they refuse the terms of peace. If they submit to peace, they'll be tributaries. If they choose war, then fight against them. You're permitted to kill all men of war, but women, children, cattle, and everything in the city is to be spared.

More on how to find wives:

Translation:

* If you see a woman of a conquered nation whom you wish to marry, you are not permitted to rape her, you have to give her time to mourn a full month and then marry her - if you decide you don't want her after all, you are not permitted to mistreat or sell her, and she is a free woman

Come on, it was very poor of you to claim that was about 'how to find wives'.

Yeah, let her mourn her family that you just killed. Give her a month to get over it. Then you get to have her as a wife. If she doesn't please you, let her go. (go where?)

Go where? Wherever she wants. That's what it says. As a resident alien in the land, she was entitled to legal protection, as well as social security support from the community, which was bound by the Law to care for her (Deuteronomy 10:17-19; 14:28-29; 16:10-14; 24:17-21, and many other places).

Let's look forward to the Lord leading his theocracy again:

Um, that's not the Lord leading His theocracy, that's a description of the atrocities of the Gentile nations which are committed against Israel.

I do agree you should consider the context of these statements. The context is that these were brutal, warring tribes, each of which believed their God or Gods blessed and led them.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.