The Morality of Deuteronomy 22 : 20-21

[Gorgias]

But why did those women get married in the first place, if they knew the consequences of their behavior if they were reported?

For one thing, she wasn’t really given a real choice: marriages were arranged by parents.

 

[Sky_River]

For one thing, she wasn’t really given a real choice: marriages were arranged by parents.

Why should the woman be punished for 1 mistake, if she didn’t even chose to get married in the first place? The Mosaic Law would be one thing if the woman chose to get married and took a risk, but what if the woman made 1 mistake and later on was forced to get married, knowing she would be punished for what she did? Wouldn’t their husbands understand the woman didn’t want to get married in the first place? It would be cruel,spiteful and immorall to punish the woman for being unfaithful if she didnt even want to be married in the first place.

 

[Sky_River]

For one thing, she wasn’t really given a real choice: marriages were arranged by parents.

What wouldve happened if women in the Old Testament era refused to get married, or asked their parents to not have an arranged marriage?

 

[Kmon23]

Why should the woman be punished for 1 mistake, if she didn’t even chose to get married in the first place? The Mosaic Law would be one thing if the woman chose to get married and took a risk, but what if the woman made 1 mistake and later on was forced to get married, knowing she would be punished for what she did? Wouldn’t their husbands understand the woman didn’t want to get married in the first place? It would be cruel,spiteful and immorall to punish the woman for being unfaithful if she didnt even want to be married in the first place.

I hope you understand that the Mosaic Law wasn’t supposed to be justice and perfection that God fully intended. That came later with Christ. If you have a problem with the Mosaic Law, then that’s because it was intended to cater to the cultural environment at the time.

Also, God has already said all sin leads to death. A women being unfaithful (such as pre-marital relations) is a sin.

And if you think it’s cruel, we’ve already stated that the Mosaic Law was a step UP from how it was before. If you think this is cruel, then other societies at the time is beyond imaginable then. And of course you think it’s cruel, we’ve had the Old Covenant replaced with a more perfect New Covenant with Christ.

 

[Sky_River]

I hope you understand that the Mosaic Law wasn’t supposed to be justice and perfection that God fully intended. That came later with Christ. If you have a problem with the Mosaic Law, then that’s because it was intended to cater to the cultural environment at the time.

**Also, God has already said all sin leads to death. A women being unfaithful (such as pre-marital relations) is a sin.
**
And if you think it’s cruel, we’ve already stated that the Mosaic Law was a step UP from how it was before. If you think this is cruel, then other societies at the time is beyond imaginable then. And of course you think it’s cruel, we’ve had the Old Covenant replaced with a more perfect New Covenant with Christ.

But if she didnt want to get married and was forced into an arranged marriage, why is she held responsible (and with a harsh penalty) for being unfaithful (even if its just one mistake that happened years before)? Why would men even want their wives stoned in those particular set of circumstances, if it wasnt spitefulness?

True, but how does time period determine morality?

 

[Gorgias]

Considering that the text describes it as the man finding out about the women’s virginity (or lack there-of)

But, that’s not the context here. The text makes it clear that the husband simply wants out of the marriage, and uses the ‘virginity’ card as a pretext. That’s what this is about - letting men know that they can’t use the threat of claimed non-virginity as blackmail against their wives.

 

[Gorgias]

But if she didnt want to get married and was forced into an arranged marriage, why is she held responsible (and with a harsh penalty) for being unfaithful (even if its just one mistake that happened years before)?

I think that you’re confusing two distinct issues: on one hand, the notion of ‘sin’/‘crime’ and punishments associated with it (in a theocracy), and on the other hand, the notion of the circumstances of the discovery of the crime and/or sin. Are you objecting to the fact that sins and crimes have punishments associated with them? Or, are you objecting to the fact that sometimes, sins and/or crimes are discovered in ways that aren’t explicitly of the sinner’s/criminal’s own wishes?

It seems like you’re railing against the situation – putatively, in your example, not of the woman’s making – in which she is at risk of exposing her crime.

Why would men even want their wives stoned in those particular set of circumstances, if it wasnt spitefulness?

That’s what the whole text is about – the realization that (some) men would use their wife’s state on her wedding night as a ‘get out of jail free card’. Is it spitefulness that causes them to do so? No – it’s sinfulness. And, rightly so, the Mosaic law condemns this and imposes a penalty on a man who attempts to unjustly accuse his wife of immoral conduct in order to get out the marriage.

What this law doesn’t do is save a woman who had committed the sin of fornication; for them, since they are guilty of the sin, the penalty is imposed.

True, but how does time period determine morality?

It doesn’t – but, what we see is that humans are dragged, kicking and screaming, from immoral behavior toward moral behavior. It takes baby steps. In this particular baby step, one particular immoral action is fixed.

 

[Sky_River]

I think that you’re confusing two distinct issues: on one hand, the notion of ‘sin’/‘crime’ and punishments associated with it (in a theocracy), and on the other hand, the notion of the circumstances of the discovery of the crime and/or sin. Are you objecting to the fact that sins and crimes have punishments associated with them? Or, are you objecting to the fact that sometimes, sins and/or crimes are discovered in ways that aren’t explicitly of the sinner’s/criminal’s own wishes?

It seems like you’re railing against the situation – putatively, in your example, not of the woman’s making – in which she is at risk of exposing her crime.

That’s what the whole text is about – the realization that (some) men would use their wife’s state on her wedding night as a ‘get out of jail free card’. Is it spitefulness that causes them to do so? No – it’s sinfulness. And, rightly so, the Mosaic law condemns this and imposes a penalty on a man who attempts to unjustly accuse his wife of immoral conduct in order to get out the marriage.

What this law doesn’t do is save a woman who had committed the sin of fornication; for them, since they are guilty of the sin, the penalty is imposed.

It doesn’t – but, what we see is that humans are dragged, kicking and screaming, from immoral behavior toward moral behavior. It takes baby steps. In this particular baby step, one particular immoral action is fixed.

Elaborate. I dont get exactly what you are trying to ask. Why would anybody want their sins to be discovered?

Why weren’t men punished for fornication, but women were?

 

[Gorgias]

Elaborate. I dont get exactly what you are trying to ask. Why would anybody want their sins to be discovered?

I’m asking what you’re unhappy with: that those who sin or commit crimes should be punished, or that sometimes, the discovery of a sin or crime isn’t by virtue of the freely-admitted confession of the sinner or criminal. Which is it that you’re railing against?

Why weren’t men punished for fornication, but women were?

Who says that men weren’t punished for fornication? See Deut 22:24 (both the man and the woman are to be stoned); Deut 22:26 (the man, but not the woman he violated, is stoned); Deut 23:18 (both male and female ‘temple prostitutes’ are prohibited). You seem to be operating under a false assumption; that is, that only women are punished under Mosaic law for sexual immorality. That is not the case.

 

[Sky_River]

I’m asking what you’re unhappy with: that those who sin or commit crimes should be punished, or that sometimes, the discovery of a sin or crime isn’t by virtue of the freely-admitted confession of the sinner or criminal. Which is it that you’re railing against?

Who says that men weren’t punished for fornication? See Deut 22:24 (both the man and the woman are to be stoned); Deut 22:26 (the man, but not the woman he violated, is stoned); Deut 23:18 (both male and female ‘temple prostitutes’ are prohibited). You seem to be operating under a false assumption; that is, that only women are punished under Mosaic law for sexual immorality. That is not the case.

The only reason the woman’s sin was discovered was because she was coerced into a marriage (they had no choice in arranged marriages). It could be argued that if the woman chose to get engaged and married but delibratley tried to deceive her husband by pretending she was a virgin, the Mosaic law punishment wouldve been just, but in many cases, that wasnt the case.

In that situation, the woman was stoned for being unfaithful to the man she was engaged to, and the man was stoned for cheating on another mans future wife he was engaged to. Temple prostitution is not the same as fornication. Nowhere does the Old Testament say that a man who simply engages in fornication would be stoned. It does say that a woman who did that would be stoned, though.

 

[Gorgias]

The only reason the woman’s sin was discovered was because she was coerced into a marriage (they had no choice in arranged marriages).

OK – so, your problem isn’t that women were sinful, it’s that they got caught in their sin. That’s a tough one to argue: would you defend a pedophile who gets caught due to his circumstances, even though he would prefer to go undetected? That’s essentially what you’re arguing for, here…

It could be argued that if the woman chose to get engaged and married but delibratley tried to deceive her husband by pretending she was a virgin, the Mosaic law punishment wouldve been just, but in many cases, that wasnt the case.

Elaborate.

In that situation, the woman was stoned for being unfaithful to the man she was engaged to, and the man was stoned for cheating on another mans future wife he was engaged to.

And therefore, the man was stoned for fornication.

Temple prostitution is not the same as fornication.

Fornication is sexual intercourse by single persons outside of marriage. How, exactly, then, is temple prostitution not fornication (or, in some cases, adultery)? Again: women and men stoned for fornication.

Nowhere does the Old Testament say that a man who simply engages in fornication would be stoned.

I’ve given you three examples where the circumstances being explained in the OT are examples of fornication in which a man is punished by death. You can keep telling yourself that it doesn’t exist, if you wish, but we’re leaving the realm of ‘discourse’ and entering the realm of ‘self-deception’.

 

[Kmon23]

But, that’s not the context here. The text makes it clear that the husband simply wants out of the marriage, and uses the ‘virginity’ card as a pretext. That’s what this is about - letting men know that they can’t use the threat of claimed non-virginity as blackmail against their wives.

I stand corrected. And for Sky River, I advise you just read everything Gorgias is saying. He seems to understand it the best in this thread.

 

[Sky_River]

My knowledge is limited on the details of the Mosaic Law, so take this with a grain of salt.

Now why would women without their virginity get married or engaged? I think this is framing the question incorrectly. The laws are supposed to be viewed the other way around. It’s meant to deal with those who are married/engaged that have committed the sin of unfaithfulness and losing their virginity when they shouldn’t have.

Now why were they so cruel and spiteful back in those days? Well, that’s reality. God told us that all sin leads to death, so being stoned to death for the sin of unfaithfulness isn’t unjust. It is just. So for the case of women who have committed the sin of unfaithfulness (or tried to deceive their to-be husbands) would be justly condemned to death.

We shouldn’t see it as being so cruel because that is just comparing to 21st century way of justice and morality. The Mosaic Law was a STEP UP from the form of morality that existed at the time. The Mosaic Law should be seen as a form of mercy from God in that respect. Not only that, God didn’t even have to let any of us live and could have condemned us all to death by stoning. God establishing this law can be seen as a form of mercy as it established a higher form of morality at the time, and women who were chaste would not be stoned even though all people were deserving of being stoned at the time since they were all sinners. Remember with the adulteress, Jesus said let he the man with no sin cast the first stone.

Of course, Jesus came and fulfilled the Mosaic Law and brought the New Covenant. It brings out the fullness of the Mosaic Law’s branding of justice with a more manifest form of mercy.

Why did God’s laws have to be so harsh? While I understand that any normal society has laws, nowadays, I heart court cases on the news where the legal consequences some people face seem too harsh. In my opinion, laws shouldn’t always be harsh-it should depend on the circumstances.

 

[Kmon23]

Why did God’s laws have to be so harsh? While I understand that any normal society has laws, nowadays, I heart court cases on the news where the legal consequences some people face seem too harsh. In my opinion, laws shouldn’t always be harsh-it should depend on the circumstances.

The harshness of a law may be subjective, but no matter how you think about it, a harsh law is never unjust in this case because that is how serious sin is. Sin leads to death. That’s how the world works. You can’t deny the seriousness of sin, so to put to death (by stoning) for being unfaithful is technically just because sin is a sin. All sin is a transgression against God, an all perfect and infinite Being. To transgress Him is a serious thing. Look at Adam and Eve. They ate a fruit in disobedience and look at the world now. All sin is serious. They are not to be taken lightly.

And like Gorgias said, you may think the Mosaic Law or any laws at the time instituted by God were not good or perfect, but understand that God was leading Israel in baby steps for the arrival of Jesus for the new and perfect covenant.

 

[Sky_River]

The harshness of a law may be subjective, but no matter how you think about it, a harsh law is never unjust in this case because that is how serious sin is. Sin leads to death. That’s how the world works. You can’t deny the seriousness of sin, so to put to death (by stoning) for being unfaithful is technically just because sin is a sin. All sin is a transgression against God, an all perfect and infinite Being. To transgress Him is a serious thing. Look at Adam and Eve. They ate a fruit in disobedience and look at the world now. All sin is serious. They are not to be taken lightly.

And like Gorgias said, you may think the Mosaic Law or any laws at the time instituted by God were not good or perfect, but understand that God was leading Israel in baby steps for the arrival of Jesus for the new and perfect covenant.

What if the woman was forced to get married? How was she being unfaithful for engaging in forncation before she even knew she would be put in an arranged marriage?

In modern times (where the Mosaic Law doesnt exist) I do think there are some situations where people shouldnt have harsh punishments. I’ve recently read court cases on the news where people are facing legal punishment that I think is too harsh. Discussing that would be off topic, but do you agree with what im saying? The punishment should depend on circumstances and situation.

 

[Gorgias]

What if the woman was forced to get married? How was she being unfaithful for engaging in forncation before she even knew she would be put in an arranged marriage?

No… she didn’t know the identity of her future husband, perhaps, but given the social conventions of the day, she did know that “she would be put in an arranged marriage”!

You keep repeating the same question, and it’s interesting that you do. You seem to want to ignore that she had committed a sin, and instead focus on the circumstances through which the sin is discovered. Think of it this way: suppose you commit a serious crime (for example, you kidnap someone and lock them in the trunk of your car). As you’re driving along, a police officer pulls you over, and in the context of the traffic stop, demands that you open your trunk. When you do, he arrests you for kidnapping. Now, I ask you: would you claim that it’s unfair that you pay the penalty for kidnapping? After all, you didn’t want to be pulled over in a traffic stop, and you didn’t want to have to open your trunk. Yet, once you did, and your crime was revealed, is it unfair to be punished for the now-revealed crime?

You also seem to keep focusing on the notion that what she is being punished for is ‘unfaithfulness’, which we talked about only in an analogous sense. What the scripture says is that the punishment is for fornicating while having been a single woman living in her father’s house. That’s the precise reason for the punishment. Would you disagree that she committed the sin of fornication while a single woman?

The punishment should depend on circumstances and situation.

In this case, the ‘circumstances’ of the sin – not the discovery of the sin – were that she had pre-marital sex; and the ‘situation’ is that she only successfully concealed her sin until sometime (months? years?) later. Why should these circumstances and situation mean that her punishment should be lessened?

 

[Sky_River]

No… she didn’t know the identity of her future husband, perhaps, but given the social conventions of the day,** she did** know that “she would be put in an arranged marriage”!

You keep repeating the same question, and it’s interesting that you do. You seem to want to ignore that she had committed a sin, and instead focus on the circumstances through which the sin is discovered. Think of it this way: suppose you commit a serious crime (for example, you kidnap someone and lock them in the trunk of your car). As you’re driving along, a police officer pulls you over, and in the context of the traffic stop, demands that you open your trunk. When you do, he arrests you for kidnapping. Now, I ask you: would you claim that it’s unfair that you pay the penalty for kidnapping? After all, you didn’t want to be pulled over in a traffic stop, and you didn’t want to have to open your trunk. Yet, once you did, and your crime was revealed, is it unfair to be punished for the now-revealed crime?

You also seem to keep focusing on the notion that what she is being punished for is ‘unfaithfulness’, which we talked about only in an analogous sense. What the scripture says is that the punishment is for fornicating while having been a single woman living in her father’s house. That’s the precise reason for the punishment. Would you disagree that she committed the sin of fornication while a single woman?

In this case, the ‘circumstances’ of the sin – not the discovery of the sin – were that she had pre-marital sex; and the ‘situation’ is that she only successfully concealed her sin until sometime (months? years?) later. Why should these circumstances and situation mean that her punishment should be lessened?

What if she didnt know she was going to get married? The circumstances would be totally different with regards to your analogy.

Your analogy fails because of totally different circumstances.

How is what happened in the Old Testament any different from the honor killings that happen in Middle Eastern countries today? According to apologetic sites, women who werent virgins in the Old Testament were stoned for bringing shame onto her family. carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-woman-not-being-virgin

Critics of the Bible must be careful not to impose their present-day moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own subjective morality. The above verses were written 3,000 years ago in a very different culture and location. Sexual purity was very highly valued, unlike today; and when a man would marry a woman, her virginity was critical. In ancient times a dowry was paid to the father of the bride, and the rightful expectation was that the bride would be a virgin.

In the culture of the time it was the father who was charged with the covering, care, and well-being of his daughter. Her sexual purity was representative of the father’s ability to raise her according to the laws of God. Therefore, in that culture, a man’s reputation, as well as the family’s reputation in the community, could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter. If his daughter had been promised to a man to be married and a dowry had been paid, there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered after the marriage, then the implication is that there had been a deception in which the father could be implicated, or it would mean that he was unaware of her sin; and this would bring great shame to the family and the community–not to mention it being a display of outright rebellion against God’s law. In this case, to insure the integrity of the family and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated.

Finally, she was not stoned for not being a virgin but for carrying out a deception in trying to appear as one.

Of course, we do not advocate any type of honor killing. We are simply stating what the cultural context was.

 

[Sky_River]

No… she didn’t know the identity of her future husband, perhaps, but given the social conventions of the day, she did know that “she would be put in an arranged marriage”!

You keep repeating the same question, and it’s interesting that you do. You seem to want to ignore that she had committed a sin, and instead focus on the circumstances through which the sin is discovered. Think of it this way: suppose you commit a serious crime (for example, you kidnap someone and lock them in the trunk of your car). As you’re driving along, a police officer pulls you over, and in the context of the traffic stop, demands that you open your trunk. When you do, he arrests you for kidnapping. Now, I ask you: would you claim that it’s unfair that you pay the penalty for kidnapping? After all, you didn’t want to be pulled over in a traffic stop, and you didn’t want to have to open your trunk. Yet, once you did, and your crime was revealed, is it unfair to be punished for the now-revealed crime?

You also seem to keep focusing on the notion that what she is being punished for is ‘unfaithfulness’, which we talked about only in an analogous sense. What the scripture says is that the punishment is for fornicating while having been a single woman living in her father’s house. That’s the precise reason for the punishment. Would you disagree that she committed the sin of fornication while a single woman?

In this case, the ‘circumstances’ of the sin – not the discovery of the sin – were that she had pre-marital sex; and the ‘situation’ is that she only successfully concealed her sin until sometime (months? years?) later. Why should these circumstances and situation mean that her punishment should be lessened?

For the reason I mentioned earlier in this thread. It made no sense for the Mosaic Law to punish women for fornication, when the Mosaic law allowed men to do it. You claim the Mosaic Law punished men for fornication, but that isn’t true. The Mosaic Law did punish men for temple prostitution and adultery with an engaged women, but the mosaic law didnt punish a man for simple fornication.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Why should these circumstances and situation mean that her punishment should be lessened?

For the reason I mentioned earlier in this thread. It made no sense for the Mosaic Law to punish women for fornication, when the Mosaic law allowed men to do it. You claim the Mosaic Law punished men for fornication, but that isn’t true.

You can keep claiming that, but I’ve showed you instances which disprove your claim.

The Mosaic Law did punish men for temple prostitution and adultery with an engaged women, but the mosaic law didnt punish a man for simple fornication.

Actually, Deuteronomy 22 demonstrates your claim to be false. Take a look at Deut 22:28; are you telling me that the man is not punished?

 

[Gorgias]

What if she didnt know she was going to get married?

Are you making this claim in good faith? Are you really saying that women in that time didn’t expect to be married? If so, I’d love to see the basis on which you’re making that claim.

Your analogy fails because of totally different circumstances.

I’m willing to accept this criticism… if you’d be able to demonstrate the ‘totally different circumstances’. I mean, you can make this claim… as long as you can show that it’s reasonable. Just saying “hey, this is totally different!” doesn’t make it so.

According to apologetic sites, women who werent virgins in the Old Testament were stoned for bringing shame onto her family. carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-woman-not-being-virgin

You’re claiming that CARM is an ‘apologetic site’? Either you’re mistaken about what ‘apologetics’ are, or you’ve been hoodwinked into believing that what Matt Slick is selling is authentic Christianity…