The Morality of Deuteronomy 22 : 20-21

[juliamajor]

Ancientnear east and indeed the middle east now are both what is called “honor and Shame” Societies. Unfortunately it meant that mostly women bring shame upon a family by how the behave… Did you ever hear of “honor” killings? that’s the result of having an “honor and Shame” society. Roots of such a society is because they believed a women held the integrity of the family bloodline. If she had been “tainted” by any sexual dallying the child could be someone else’s and not the family. raising a child from another man , if found out, would bring shame and disgrace to the entire family- not just the immediate family.

 

[Sky_River]

This is because as a previous poster said,“The Mosaic law was a product of its time – that is, it was meant for a certain people, in a certain geographical area, in a certain timeframe.”

The Mosaic Law is meant as a progression and development of morality, justice, and humanity as a whole. Ultimately this is all pinnacled with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with the New Covenant, hence why the Mosaic Law is now irrelevant for today.

None of this applies to Sharia Law. It does not have the same context that the Mosaic Law had during its time, and it would just be a regression to lower forms of justice/morality that became irrelevant with Jesus. For those who want a nonreligious explanation, it’s basically irrelevant and unnecessary as today’s form of justice and morality.

You claim that Mosaic Law was different from Sharia Law because it happened in a certain timeframe/geographic area and only pertained to a certain people. I have a counterarguement to that claim. But first I’ll explain the purpose of the Mosaic Law, from my perspective.

Before Jesus died on the cross for the world’s sins, God was less forgiving and more punishing than he is now. After Jesus died on the cross, God treats sinners differently. That’s why people in modern times view Sharia Law as barbaric and immoral, but Christians dont view the Mosaic law the same way, even though they both had very similar punishments.

However, even after Jesus was crucified, the Jewish government of Israel, the Sanhedrin, still enforced the harsh punishments of the Mosaic Law. They stoned Paul and Steven, and Jesus’s crucifixion didnt stop them from enforcing the punishments of the law of Moses. The Mosaic law was enforced for 40 years after Jesus was crucified.** If the diaspora didnt happen in 70 AD, the punishments of the Mosaic Law (for adultrey, etc) wouldve continued for hundreds of years even into modern times. How would that be any different from Sharia Law? **

We agree that God’s Old Covenant of harsh punishments were only moral in the ancient days of Israel before Jesus paid the price for our sins. But why did God create those harsh laws, knowing that the Jewish government would enforce them years after even after Jesus was crucified and paid the price for our sins? Enforcing the Mosaic Law outside the context of pre-crucifixtion era would be barbaric and no different from Sharia Law.

 

[Sky_River]

Ancientnear east and indeed the middle east now are both what is called “honor and Shame” Societies. Unfortunately it meant that mostly women bring shame upon a family by how the behave… Did you ever hear of “honor” killings? that’s the result of having an “honor and Shame” society. Roots of such a society is because they believed a women held the integrity of the family bloodline. If she had been “tainted” by any sexual dallying the child could be someone else’s and not the family. raising a child from another man , if found out, would bring shame and disgrace to the entire family- not just the immediate family.

How is Deuteronomy 22 any different from that?

 

[Sky_River]

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

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?

Unlike the woman, the man was not stoned to death for fornication, according to that verse in Deuteronomy.

 

[juliamajor]

How is Deuteronomy 22 any different from that?

See post #41
It is anthropological term and it is an explanation for societal behavior.
That adultery was punishable in almost every ancient society and women bore the brunt of it is a fact. It all has to do with Honor and Shame and having a child that has a legal right to inheritance by blood. Keeping the purity of the line , lets say.
Not so long ago it was considered understandable for a husband and sometimes a wife to kill an adulterous spouse.
As far as the wedding night virgin thing-many a household pricked a finger so blood would show up on a bed sheet for all the neighbors to see.
We are not talking about fairness . We are talking about society and custom.Just because the biblical writer was inspired doesn’t mean his brain wasn’t his own-writings will reflect the history and tenor of the times, because that is what the writer knows.
The Mosaic Laws might seem harsh but for their time they actually weren’t. The Father in a Roman family could kill his child -if he did something displeasing to the Father.That was way after Moses. First and foremost the Law is their to make Israel separate and apart from all other nations. Israel was to be different from the nations-special. The Holiness code was supposed to accomplish that with the myriad of Laws he has. A holy nation a royal priesthood , a people set apart.

 

[Sky_River]

See post #41
It is anthropological term and it is an explanation for societal behavior.
That adultery was punishable in almost every ancient society and women bore the brunt of it is a fact. It all has to do with Honor and Shame and having a child that has a legal right to inheritance by blood. Keeping the purity of the line , lets say.
Not so long ago it was considered understandable for a husband and sometimes a wife to kill an adulterous spouse.
As far as the wedding night virgin thing-many a household pricked a finger so blood would show up on a bed sheet for all the neighbors to see.
We are not talking about fairness . We are talking about society and custom.Just because the biblical writer was inspired doesn’t mean his brain wasn’t his own-writings will reflect the history and tenor of the times, because that is what the writer knows.
The Mosaic Laws might seem harsh but for their time they actually weren’t. The Father in a Roman family could kill his child -if he did something displeasing to the Father.That was way after Moses. First and foremost the Law is their to make Israel separate and apart from all other nations. Israel was to be different from the nations-special. The Holiness code was supposed to accomplish that with the myriad of Laws he has. A holy nation a royal priesthood , a people set apart.

Why did men in ancient Israel investigate to find proof if their wife was a virgin? If they didn’t do that, nobody would know that the woman wasnt a virgin, and how would shame be brought upon her family if nobody knew that?

But if the Mosaic Law was just for the time period, I have a question about that. **How did God make sure the Israelites stopped enforcing the harsh punishments of the Mosaic Law after Jesus was crucified? I dont see how the government of Judea enforcing the Mosaic Law and stoning woman for adultrey, after Jesus was crucified, was any different from sharia law. **They did enforce those harsh punishments for 40 years after Jesus was crucified (until the diaspora in 70AD), and if the diaspora in 70AD didnt happen, those laws would still be enforced for hundreds of years and probably into modern times. God created the Mosaic Law (the old covenant) to exist in the time period before Jesus paid the price for sins.

 

[Gorgias]

"Sky River:

You claim the Mosaic Law punished men for fornication, but that isn’t true.

Unlike the woman, the man was not stoned to death for fornication, according to that verse in Deuteronomy.

OK… so, at least you’ve moved away from the claim that the Mosaic Law didn’t punish men… we’re making progress!

Is your objection now that Mosaic law didn’t treat men and women in exactly the same way? 'Cause after all, if that’s your problem, then you’re going to have to throw out all civil law throughout all time! In no society – with perhaps the exception of the past 50-70 years or so – have women enjoyed exactly the same protection under law as men did. And I think we can agree that even today, that’s not exactly the case, even here in the U.S. … :nope:

But, perhaps your objection is that the Mosaic law isn’t perfect – that, as a construct, it didn’t provide complete justice for all? As we’ve seen, though, the Mosaic law did improve the situation and provide for a more equitable administration of justice! So, I agree with you that the Mosaic law didn’t completely provide for justice (in fact, I think I would argue that it helped pave the way for Jesus’ commandments, which, as it were, do provide equal terms), but it’s important to note that the Mosaic law was an improvement over the standards which it replaced…!

 

[Gorgias]

But if the Mosaic Law was just for the time period

I think that the argument is a bit more subtle than that. It’s not that the Mosaic law “was just for [that] time period”, it’s that it was established in that time period. Therefore, it addressed the situation in the culture in that day. That’s not to say that it’s just for that period, though: Jesus did say that since He came to fulfill the Mosaic Law, that not one bit of it would pass away. However, He calls us to a higher standard than the Mosaic Law – we are called to be more righteous than either scribes (lawyers) or Pharisees (fanatic enforcers of the law). We are to exceed the requirements of the law!

 

[Sky_River]

I think that the argument is a bit more subtle than that. It’s not that the Mosaic law “was just for [that] time period”, it’s that it was established in that time period. Therefore, it addressed the situation in the culture in that day. That’s not to say that it’s just for that period, though: Jesus did say that since He came to fulfill the Mosaic Law, that not one bit of it would pass away. However, He calls us to a higher standard than the Mosaic Law – we are called to be more righteous than either scribes (lawyers) or Pharisees (fanatic enforcers of the law). We are to exceed the requirements of the law!

How long did God intend for the Israelites to enforce the Mosaic Law? My interpretation of the harsh punishments of the Mosaic Law is that God had different standards of forgiveness/punishment before Jesus was crucified, but the Jewish government of Judea enforced the Mosaic Law for 40 years after that, until the diaspora.

 

[Gorgias]

How long did God intend for the Israelites to enforce the Mosaic Law?

Awesome question! Here’s my take on it, from a Christian theological perspective…

The Mosaic Law wasn’t just ‘law’; it was a covenant. There’s an important distinction to be made there: ‘law’ – or ‘contract’ (‘social contract’, as it were, for students of history and government!) – only says “you (the individual) and I (society / the government) are going to make a business deal – I’ll agree to protect your interests, and you’ll agree to follow the conventions I set up.” There’s no notion that the government should love you, or that you should love the government; instead, it’s simply a ‘business deal’ of sorts. If the individual reneges on his obligations (or the government reneges on its obligations), there’s a process that then can assess damages that are owed and allows for the parties to walk away from the contract.

On the other hand, a covenant is a contract that has an entirely new dimension: it makes the parties to the contract actually family members. That is, even if one or the other ‘breaks’ the contract, that family relationship remains, so that even if there are consequences (i.e., ‘damages’), the parties don’t walk away – they remain related to one another in a fundamental and definitive way.

So, from a Christian perspective, what do we have? The ‘Mosaic Law’ isn’t just law, it’s a covenant between God and God’s Chosen People. Did God recognize that, at the time of the establishment of the Mosaic Covenant, people would be influenced by the culture of the day, and would have limits to how far they’d be able to ‘stretch’ in terms of moral behavior? Absolutely (after all, that’s exactly what Jesus said about ‘Moses’ and ‘hardness of hearts’). Did God intend the Mosaic Covenant to be the fulfillment of His desires about how all would act, throughout all time? No way.

But… does this mean that God had an ‘expiration date’ in mind with the Mosaic Covenant? Well… no. God intended that His people would always be His people; there’s no time that the covenant would come to an end. Did God intend them to only adhere to the Law? No… the covenant law represents a minimum or baseline – after all, both God’s prophets and Jesus kept reminding the Israelites about the difference between covenant love (i.e., ‘mercy’) and sacrifice.

My interpretation of the harsh punishments of the Mosaic Law is that God had different standards of forgiveness/punishment before Jesus was crucified, but the Jewish government of Judea enforced the Mosaic Law for 40 years after that, until the diaspora.

I don’t know that I’d say that they’re “God’s standards”, per se. Maybe just the limits to which God knew that people would be able to accept and strive towards.