Thanks Dr. D. I’ve been thinking on Numbers 5 for a few weeks, ever since our power read of the Torah. 3 things: 1. I didn’t know the phrase “Trial by Ordeal” thanks for that! 2. I was surprised that you didn’t say the word “abortion” in your video. My first read of Numbers 5 led me to see the priest, obeying the Lord’s word to Moses, forcing abortion (minus a miracle) on the suspected woman, b/c I was assuming that the water of bitterness contained more than holy water and the dust of ground. 3. Despite the disturbing literal read, I’ve been practicing delivering homilies on Numbers 5. I actually see the Gospel in it (and the theme of child sacrifice).
I think something you brought up in everything you've explained gives us the answer a lot of these kind of tests were to possibly even just 100% of the time hurt the person they weren't really leaning on the wisdom of God but there was a practice in that time when a man didn't want his wife anymore or didn't like his wife they would just turn them out and the woman wouldn't be protected she'd have no one to support her and now she was a ruined woman so she couldn't really be married again anymore or in very few people wanted her so it really was a protection I think you said something really interesting in it you said this one seems almost as if you if you take the God part out of it the Supernatural part out of it it is there to prove her innocence and I think you're right I think that's exactly what it is that no one saw her in the act and men were using this as a I don't want to be married to this woman anymore so I'll just accuse her of adultery and we know what the loss is so she'll just automatically be accused and be put out and God wasn't letting these men off with that ease if the woman was not guilty or even if she was truly only God was able to know and passed judgment on her because the actual acts didn't do anything so truly in her innocence and/or in her guilt really only God could pass a judgment in this case because if she was innocent then like the acts of brushing off the ink and getting some dirt would not have done anything but if she was guilty it didn't matter what you did ink and dirt or not she was guilty and only God could know that and so he would cause these things to occur in her body because of her guilt so I think you're right it was kind of the way it was to prove innocence first in other words innocent until proven guilty
The death penalty exista in regard to the decalogue is not only for married women or concerning an act with one. One thing about gender related language, in Hebrew, there is not really a masculine form, but a common fotm that doublea as masculine. Starting, then, from the common/masculine, then saying something of tge opposite sex requires grammatically to contrast it against the derivative feminine form. It is not likely that those hearing JESUS about not looking with lust at a woman did not also assume with this wirding the flip side too, about a woman lustfully viewing a man. Nit labiring to spell out the flip side may serve as a sort of shorthand. In the Shepherd of Hermas, there is the curious point thriwn in somewhere that what is secually immoral for a man is likewise for a woman too.
You explained well, in the context of modern sensibilities ie: gender equality. But I come away feeling that it’s more to placate a modern audience than to filter the text through an ancient Hebrew lens. And, with all respect, it amazes me that you did not even address the elephant in the room: that throughout Torah, Israel is the adulterous wife and prophesied to become an adulterous wife. Can we at least begin with Hosea? I do agree that lineage is one reason the married woman is singled out for severity. But this is the same biblical metaphor: the married wife, whose husband is jealous against adultery (idolatry) and zealously guards His chosen from ‘foreigners’ who creep in. And of course, the practice is abolished after 70 CE, when the avalanche of haShem’s judgment fell. Because after this, I’m sure no one wanted to talk about adulterous, idolatrous wives. They knew the implications. They understood the passage and it was much easier to continue on, pretending that everything was fine and nothing changed. But they lost fruitfulness and the covering of a husband. HaShem is a jealous god.
Thanks Dr. D. I’ve been thinking on Numbers 5 for a few weeks, ever since our power read of the Torah.
3 things: 1. I didn’t know the phrase “Trial by Ordeal” thanks for that! 2. I was surprised that you didn’t say the word “abortion” in your video. My first read of Numbers 5 led me to see the priest, obeying the Lord’s word to Moses, forcing abortion (minus a miracle) on the suspected woman, b/c I was assuming that the water of bitterness contained more than holy water and the dust of ground. 3. Despite the disturbing literal read, I’ve been practicing delivering homilies on Numbers 5. I actually see the Gospel in it (and the theme of child sacrifice).
I think something you brought up in everything you've explained gives us the answer a lot of these kind of tests were to possibly even just 100% of the time hurt the person they weren't really leaning on the wisdom of God but there was a practice in that time when a man didn't want his wife anymore or didn't like his wife they would just turn them out and the woman wouldn't be protected she'd have no one to support her and now she was a ruined woman so she couldn't really be married again anymore or in very few people wanted her so it really was a protection I think you said something really interesting in it you said this one seems almost as if you if you take the God part out of it the Supernatural part out of it it is there to prove her innocence and I think you're right I think that's exactly what it is that no one saw her in the act and men were using this as a I don't want to be married to this woman anymore so I'll just accuse her of adultery and we know what the loss is so she'll just automatically be accused and be put out and God wasn't letting these men off with that ease if the woman was not guilty or even if she was truly only God was able to know and passed judgment on her because the actual acts didn't do anything so truly in her innocence and/or in her guilt really only God could pass a judgment in this case because if she was innocent then like the acts of brushing off the ink and getting some dirt would not have done anything but if she was guilty it didn't matter what you did ink and dirt or not she was guilty and only God could know that and so he would cause these things to occur in her body because of her guilt so I think you're right it was kind of the way it was to prove innocence first in other words innocent until proven guilty
The death penalty exista in regard to the decalogue is not only for married women or concerning an act with one. One thing about gender related language, in Hebrew, there is not really a masculine form, but a common fotm that doublea as masculine. Starting, then, from the common/masculine, then saying something of tge opposite sex requires grammatically to contrast it against the derivative feminine form. It is not likely that those hearing JESUS about not looking with lust at a woman did not also assume with this wirding the flip side too, about a woman lustfully viewing a man. Nit labiring to spell out the flip side may serve as a sort of shorthand. In the Shepherd of Hermas, there is the curious point thriwn in somewhere that what is secually immoral for a man is likewise for a woman too.
You explained well, in the context of modern sensibilities ie: gender equality. But I come away feeling that it’s more to placate a modern audience than to filter the text through an ancient Hebrew lens.
And, with all respect, it amazes me that you did not even address the elephant in the room: that throughout Torah, Israel is the adulterous wife and prophesied to become an adulterous wife. Can we at least begin with Hosea?
I do agree that lineage is one reason the married woman is singled out for severity. But this is the same biblical metaphor: the married wife, whose husband is jealous against adultery (idolatry) and zealously guards His chosen from ‘foreigners’ who creep in.
And of course, the practice is abolished after 70 CE, when the avalanche of haShem’s judgment fell. Because after this, I’m sure no one wanted to talk about adulterous, idolatrous wives. They knew the implications. They understood the passage and it was much easier to continue on, pretending that everything was fine and nothing changed.
But they lost fruitfulness and the covering of a husband. HaShem is a jealous god.
I like it. If she cheated, she will be cursed.
It's in the Bible. You don't have to bow down to modern feminism. But you seem like a feminist.