The law of Moses
- Thread starter ivanc0
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Thanks for proving my point. Enjoy stewing in your ignorance and hatred of God 
Last edited:
From sacred-texts.com
If a man sell his daughter - This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress - when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.
If a man sell his daughter - This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress - when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Giving more though to this commandment, it is actually not only out of character, but also extemporaneous, not concordant in the time. why?
The Israelites just came out of Egypt, they are en the desert, they were slaves themselves, so they have to hate slavery, they also been feed by God itself so extreme poverty does not exists, they are in a 40 years Journey towards the promised land, there is no land ownership or trade, they are moving like nomads, where in this circumstances this commandment makes sense? I am completely out of any possible rational explanation.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Giving more though to this commandment, it is actually not only out of character, but also extemporaneous, not concordant in the time. why?
The Israelites just came out of Egypt, they are en the desert, they were slaves themselves, so they have to hate slavery, they also been feed by God itself so extreme poverty does not exists, they are in a 40 years Journey towards the promised land, there is no land ownership or trade, they are moving like nomads, where in this circumstances this commandment makes sense? I am completely out of any possible rational explanation.
The word go out is
yaw-tsaw'A primitive root; to go (causatively bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proximate: - X after, appear, X assuredly, bear out, X begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, come (abroad, out, thereat, without), + be condemned, depart (-ing, -ure), draw forth, in the end, escape, exact, fail, fall (out), fetch forth (out), get away (forth, hence, out), (able to, cause to, let) go abroad (forth, on, out), going out, grow, have forth (out), issue out, lay (lie) out, lead out, pluck out, proceed, pull out, put away, be risen, X scarce, send with commandment, shoot forth, spread, spring out, stand out, X still, X surely, take forth (out), at any time, X to [and fro], utter.
Believe what you want to believe...
yaw-tsaw'A primitive root; to go (causatively bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proximate: - X after, appear, X assuredly, bear out, X begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, come (abroad, out, thereat, without), + be condemned, depart (-ing, -ure), draw forth, in the end, escape, exact, fail, fall (out), fetch forth (out), get away (forth, hence, out), (able to, cause to, let) go abroad (forth, on, out), going out, grow, have forth (out), issue out, lay (lie) out, lead out, pluck out, proceed, pull out, put away, be risen, X scarce, send with commandment, shoot forth, spread, spring out, stand out, X still, X surely, take forth (out), at any time, X to [and fro], utter.
Believe what you want to believe...
I don't know that this is a good explanation. Do we force guests into our houses? Do we force them to stay? Do we force guests to marry us and do the things marriage entails? In the end, the marriage is forced on the woman, which, if it happened against her consent and wishes, would seem to be rape. I don't think killing someone's family, forcing the woman to marry you, then telling her, "you have a month to consent to it" could rationally be considered a "consensual."
I think Ivan's concern boils down to the use of force and the intrinsic value of a human life. It seems the woman is being treated as personal property, not as someone who owns their own life. The man's use of violence on the woman is sanctioned by that law.
(1) Just because something was an ancient war custom doesn't make it morally acceptable. The fact of this being an ancient war custom does not excuse it. All it does is help us understand that Israel conducted warfare just like everyone else.
(2) The MacArthur note here sill is not able to avoid that this is a marriage brought on by force and use of violence. The woman really has no say in the matter, nor does her family. She is treated as someone else's property, not as having intrinsic value and ownership of herself. No, the man has killed her family and taken her by force. It's not morally acceptable just because he gave her a month to come to terms with it. Come to terms with what? Her forced captivity and marriage to her family's killer? I suppose we could label him a "stranger," as MacArthur does, but we know that this particular "stranger" has killed her family and taken her as his own property.
(3) Maybe we could say, as the MacArthur note does, that this is just a law dealing with the facts of reality. War was war and the Israelites would do what everyone else was doing. Rather than try to eradicate the practices, which would likely prove futile, it's better to regulate it and maybe be a little more humane than was typical. Maybe...but I don't think we should label this as "kind" as MacArthur does. It's still violence and force used on the woman and her family. It's not kind by any normal understanding of "kind." Perhaps it's not as bad as what "the _____ tribe" over there was doing, but that only places it in terms of relative behavior, not moral acceptance, unless we're some sort of moral relativists. We are still unable to avoid the moral question - it appears by all rational means that this law was immoral (to say the least).
I think Ivan's concern boils down to the use of force and the intrinsic value of a human life. It seems the woman is being treated as personal property, not as someone who owns their own life. The man's use of violence on the woman is sanctioned by that law.
(1) Just because something was an ancient war custom doesn't make it morally acceptable. The fact of this being an ancient war custom does not excuse it. All it does is help us understand that Israel conducted warfare just like everyone else.
(2) The MacArthur note here sill is not able to avoid that this is a marriage brought on by force and use of violence. The woman really has no say in the matter, nor does her family. She is treated as someone else's property, not as having intrinsic value and ownership of herself. No, the man has killed her family and taken her by force. It's not morally acceptable just because he gave her a month to come to terms with it. Come to terms with what? Her forced captivity and marriage to her family's killer? I suppose we could label him a "stranger," as MacArthur does, but we know that this particular "stranger" has killed her family and taken her as his own property.
(3) Maybe we could say, as the MacArthur note does, that this is just a law dealing with the facts of reality. War was war and the Israelites would do what everyone else was doing. Rather than try to eradicate the practices, which would likely prove futile, it's better to regulate it and maybe be a little more humane than was typical. Maybe...but I don't think we should label this as "kind" as MacArthur does. It's still violence and force used on the woman and her family. It's not kind by any normal understanding of "kind." Perhaps it's not as bad as what "the _____ tribe" over there was doing, but that only places it in terms of relative behavior, not moral acceptance, unless we're some sort of moral relativists. We are still unable to avoid the moral question - it appears by all rational means that this law was immoral (to say the least).
Last edited:
Why! Why! Why!
The questions above may not be answered, but i know God is love and always has been love. He has not changed. Jesus was at Creation and talked to Abraham and Moses and has been watching on right throughout history. When someone is being hurt by thieves or tortured by evil men Why doesn't Jesus step in. Why, we may not know now, but when we see it the way He does we'll understand, so we'll just need to trust by faith until then. When Abraham was walking up the hill to sacrifice his son the way God commanded, by faith he just obeyed. "Why" would have come into his mind, and Abraham could have justified that "this is not loving", but he obeyed and as a result came closer to God.
Some of the laws we might not understand today in our time but by faith just believe that God was, is, and will always be Love.
Why are these laws there? i don't know, but God will answer all your questions and you will see that He is Love, if you patiently believe.
The questions above may not be answered, but i know God is love and always has been love. He has not changed. Jesus was at Creation and talked to Abraham and Moses and has been watching on right throughout history. When someone is being hurt by thieves or tortured by evil men Why doesn't Jesus step in. Why, we may not know now, but when we see it the way He does we'll understand, so we'll just need to trust by faith until then. When Abraham was walking up the hill to sacrifice his son the way God commanded, by faith he just obeyed. "Why" would have come into his mind, and Abraham could have justified that "this is not loving", but he obeyed and as a result came closer to God.
Some of the laws we might not understand today in our time but by faith just believe that God was, is, and will always be Love.
Why are these laws there? i don't know, but God will answer all your questions and you will see that He is Love, if you patiently believe.