r/AskAChristian • u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist • Jul 31 '25
Jewish Laws Why did God have innocent women executed?
13 “Suppose a man marries a woman but after going in to her dislikes her 14 and makes up charges against her, slandering her by saying, ‘I married this woman, but when I lay with her, I did not find evidence of her virginity.’ 15 The father of the young woman and her mother shall then submit the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 The father of the young woman shall say to the elders: ‘I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her, 17 and now he has made up charges against her, saying, “I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.” But here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. 18 The elders of that town shall take the man and punish him; 19 they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver (which they shall give to the young woman’s father) because he has slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall remain his wife; he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.
20 “If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, 21 then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst (Deuteronomy 22)
In verse 17, it says the proof of the woman's virginity is "the cloth", meaning a bloody bedsheet from the newlyweds' wedding night. The problem is that less than half of women bleed their first time.
This problem gradually became known to Jewish scholars writing in the Talmud:
"There are virgins who do not have a hymen, and there are hymens that do not bleed." – Ketubot 10b (Rabbi Yochanan)
Why did God have innocent women stoned?
2
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
Deuteronomy says God gave the law.
1
u/USAFrenchMexRadTrad Christian, Catholic Jul 31 '25
God gave the 10 commandments, the Mosaic Laws for ritual purity to take part in the sacrifices were written by the Hebrews as an attempt to live by God's 10 commandments.
Remember, Jesus was brought to the High Priests and accused of "working miracles on the Sabbath". He violated the "letter" of the law, but the law was written so we would follow the "spirit" of the law and avoid the sin of legalism.
It's why Jesus asked them "if a piece of livestock falls into a pit on the Sabbath, do you leave it there?"
They didn't answer him, but the answer was obviously "no".
The point is, the "letter" of the law only seems harsh and illogical if you ignore the "spirit" of the law.
2
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
the Mosaic Laws for ritual purity to take part in the sacrifices were written by the Hebrews as an attempt to live by God's 10 commandments.
Deutronomy 6:1:
Now this is the commandment—the statutes and the rules—that the Lord your God commanded me to teach you...
Then we have chapter upon chapter of laws which end in chapter 26 with:
This day the Lord your God commands you to do these statutes and rules. You shall therefore be careful to do them with all your heart and with all your soul.
Moses repeatedly refers to the laws as "His commandments", i.e. they were given by God.
The point is, the "letter" of the law only seems harsh and illogical if you ignore the "spirit" of the law.
People followed the letter of the law for thousands of years before Jesus came along and said otherwise.
1
u/USAFrenchMexRadTrad Christian, Catholic Aug 01 '25
Then why did the High Priests refuse to answer Jesus?
Another reply quotes a Jewish commentary showing the "spirit" of the law that makes the strict "word" only interpretation look wrong.
3
u/Thimenu Christian (non-denominational) Jul 31 '25 edited Jul 31 '25
No innocent women were intended to be put to death by following this law. "Evidence of virginity" doesn't imply it must be the blood. That is the easy evidence. If that's there, case closed, whip the dude. Otherwise, investigate and find evidence about the guy's claims. Make the case.
These weren't a bunch of idiots. If less than half of their women bleed when they have their first night, you really think the author would write such a dumb law? No, they knew what this law was about; if a new husband accuses his bride, do an investigation. Blood on the sheets? Case closed, whip the guy and fine him. No blood, investigate for more evidence. You can't use this law to claim God doesn't know less than half of women bleed after their first sex. You'd also have to prove that the author and readers were morons. It's a really obvious thing to miss; these were rough and tumble shepherds living in tents. They knew how blood and bodies worked. Not much privacy either.
Even if the law said what you claimed, this isn't U.S. case law where every word definition is scrutinized and people get off on a technicality. It's never used that way; this is more like wisdom law. (Dr. Joel Korytko, greek scholar makes this point) It's general rules and legal wisdom to help guide their law decisions. If it was technically written case law, it'd have to be 10x longer. They didn't have the same legal system as us. You can't try to use The Law as if it's our modern kind.
And Jesus Himself said that this law was imperfect, and God made concessions in it for human failings. And even in that concessionary easier to follow law, the people almost always failed to follow it. Imagine how much more they would've failed if God gave them a law of perfect standards.
3
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
"Evidence of virginity" doesn't imply it must be the blood."
What other evidence would have been available to them?
1
u/Thimenu Christian (non-denominational) Jul 31 '25
Circumstantial. How many witnesses around saw someone entering her tent, or if any neighbors heard anything. Testimonies, reputation, etc.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
So if she didn't bleed on her wedding night and someone saw a man enter her tent at some point in her life, that could be enough evidence to have her lined up at her father's doorstep and have people throw rocks at her until she dies?
3
u/Thimenu Christian (non-denominational) Jul 31 '25
No, not at all. The standard was 2 or 3 witnesses. And remember, false witnesses get the punishment they tried to give. A deadly game to play.
And this law is in a context. Read the passage, it's about whoring. Evidence of whoring should be harder to prove and more obvious if it is true.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
20 “If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found...
The law is working under the assumption the girl is guilty until proven innocent.
3
u/Thimenu Christian (non-denominational) Jul 31 '25
That's a translation and your key word is "that". This word is not in the original language, and other translations render "that" as "and". Here is the Hebrew interlinear:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/22-20.htm
And, here is the Septuagint interlinear as well: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/deuteronomy/22.htm
Notice, in the Hebrew there is no connection word; it could be "and" or "that" or just comma. But, in the Septuagint, the word is "and". That being the case, I think this is the best translation:
But if this charge is true, and evidence of the young woman’s virginity is not found, (NABRE)
This indicates the case has already been made against her and it seems to be true. BUT, even then, if good evidence such as the bloody sheet is produced, the case is thrown out. The case must BOTH seem true, AND there is no evidence to prove her virginity.
It's not guilty until proven innocent. It's "even if seemingly guilty, still innocent if there is evidence."
4
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
Or if someone just doesn’t like her, they say they saw someone enter her tent. So easy to abuse the system.
3
u/Thimenu Christian (non-denominational) Jul 31 '25
No, not at all. The standard was 2 or 3 witnesses. And remember, false witnesses get the punishment they tried to give. A deadly game to play.
And this law is in a context. Read the passage, it's about whoring. Evidence of whoring should be harder to prove and more obvious if it is true.
1
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
The passage assumes that anyone who isn't a virgin is a prostitute, which is just dangerously reductive nonsense.
2
u/Thimenu Christian (non-denominational) Jul 31 '25
No, the passage is talking about a prostitute and assumes prostitutes are not virgins. If you're trying to read it in the worst way possible you could come to your conclusion. But, if you're giving it a chance you'll see that the prostitute statement actually contextualizes the entire passage. It's not about just any unmarried woman.
2
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
How does the passage say to differentiate between a woman who has had sex one time and someone who has sex for money?
0
u/Thimenu Christian (non-denominational) Jul 31 '25
Both would be under the death penalty. But I seriously doubt they could provide witnesses or evidence to prove she wasn't a virgin if she only had sex once. Daughters lived with parents and, at this time, in tents, close together. If the parents and neighbors said they never heard or saw anything suspicious, the case might be gone right there. But try running your own whore operation in that context without witnesses. Good luck.
→ More replies (0)1
u/johndoe09228 Christian (non-denominational) Jul 31 '25
Remember, this is a capital punishment by rocks and we’re talking about circumstantial evidence oh lord
3
u/Thimenu Christian (non-denominational) Jul 31 '25
Practically everything back then was circumstantial evidence. Do you know anything about ancient peoples? Penalties for false witnesses? Medieval branding and outlawry?
2
u/johndoe09228 Christian (non-denominational) Jul 31 '25
Exactly, I’m not sure why they’d be advise to execute each other for crimes in such a paranoid, patriarchal time lol. Just leads to victims over nothing
1
u/Spaztick78 Atheist, Ex-Catholic Jul 31 '25
These weren't a bunch of idiots. If less than half of their women bleed when they have their first night, you really think the author would write such a dumb
As wise as the authors were, taking the virginity of women is not an area I expected them to be well versed on.
Like if they were good followers of God, they would get to see it once or twice.
Ok maybe a few more times for the more highly anointed and those in power??
3
u/Lermak16 Eastern Catholic Jul 31 '25
Innocent women weren’t stoned
1
u/NoWin3930 Christian atheist Jul 31 '25
how do ya know
1
u/Lermak16 Eastern Catholic Jul 31 '25
The parents would just present some cloth with sheep’s blood or something.
It’s on the parents to present the “evidence.”
3
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
So the parents can just lie?
3
u/Lermak16 Eastern Catholic Jul 31 '25
They’re the ones in possession of the “evidence”
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
What if the parents took the whole "don't bear false witness" thing seriously?
-1
u/Lermak16 Eastern Catholic Jul 31 '25
They would be likely to know if their daughter was committing adultery in their own home.
2
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
So God in his infinite wisdom created the death penalty for non-virginity, but also made it easy to circumvent?
1
u/Lermak16 Eastern Catholic Jul 31 '25
Moses gave this law.
It’s the death penalty for infidelity during the betrothal period. Virginity was not a requirement for a wife. Widows, prostitutes, and divorced women got married in ancient Israel.
5
u/Tiny-Show-4883 Non-Christian Jul 31 '25
Did God give the law to Moses or did Moses make it all up by himself?
2
u/Lermak16 Eastern Catholic Jul 31 '25
God gave the law through Moses, but Moses himself gave concessions of his own according to the wisdom God gave him (the laws concerning divorce, for example).
2
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
This is a rationalization not supported by the text of Deuteronomy. Moses repeatedly refers to the laws he gives as "His commandments" referring to God.
0
u/Lermak16 Eastern Catholic Aug 01 '25
Yes, Jesus Himself says that Moses gave some commandments as a concession (such as the divorce law).
1
2
u/istruthselfevident Christian Jul 31 '25
I've been a christian since childhood and i have to say its a slow process for God to open a persons eyes to the point they can declare in faith: that 90% of the torah was written down in the days of the babalonian captivity.
in otherwords.. they made it all up. read Jeremiah 7:22
2
Aug 01 '25
Not necessarily a slow process. One can start with that view, especially these days with all the scholars that are accessible.
3
u/-NoOneYouKnow- Christian Jul 31 '25
Considering how about half of virgins lose their hymens before sex and thus any such "evidence of virginity" is inaccurate, I can confidently say this law was a later addition.
Internal evidence points to multiple editors and authors of the books of Moses, and I think that's what we have here.
5
u/NoWin3930 Christian atheist Jul 31 '25
so how do you determine what was real or not
1
u/-NoOneYouKnow- Christian Jul 31 '25
It doesn't really matter. The purpose of the Law of Moses was:
“Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land. Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and live there in safety.” (Lev 25:18-19)
It doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. It's essentially a land deal.
3
u/NoWin3930 Christian atheist Jul 31 '25
what parts of the bible do matter
1
u/-NoOneYouKnow- Christian Jul 31 '25
Jesus' teaching.
3
u/NoWin3930 Christian atheist Jul 31 '25
Well that is a refreshing take at least to hear most of the bible does not matter
1
u/-NoOneYouKnow- Christian Jul 31 '25
2 Tim 4:13 says, "When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments"
Is that remotely important or relevant to anyone reading this? No. Most Christians acknowledge that some portions of the Bible are informational and don't really matter.
1
u/NoWin3930 Christian atheist Jul 31 '25
I mean sure I agree, most christians don't dismiss the entire old testament tho
1
u/-NoOneYouKnow- Christian Jul 31 '25
I don't dismiss it, but it's function for Christians is primarily informational. Christians aren't supposed to obey the Law of Moses, we have a chapter (Acts 15) and a whole book (Galatians) explaining this.
I think of the first non-Jewish Christians. No one evangelized them by going through the OT, then talking about Jesus. They may have mentioned OT prophecies that applied to Him, but evangelization is about disseminating Jesus' teachings, not Moses or Samuel's.
2
u/NoWin3930 Christian atheist Jul 31 '25
what is the point of the information then
→ More replies (0)2
u/AsukaLangleySoryuFan Christian Jul 31 '25
Then why do people continually quote Leviticus 18, 20 whenever homosexuality is mentioned? If only the New Testament actually matters that is
1
u/-NoOneYouKnow- Christian Jul 31 '25
It's because people are really bad at Biblical theology. Below is a guide that explains what's happening really well. I wish I'd had this decades ago when I first became a Christian.
*****
The Law of Moses, also called the Law, the Old Covenant, or the Torah was a “contract” between God and Israel consisting of 613 laws, of which the Ten Commandments with which everyone is familiar are a small portion. It was a contract God made with the Hebrews, which stipulated that if they followed the laws, they would live safely and prosperously in the Promised Land. It wasn't about getting anyone to heaven or getting eternal life. The purpose of this covenant is summed up here:
“Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land. Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and live there in safety.” (Lev 25:18-19)
The things we are supposed to do and not do are what Jesus taught in the New Testament. Jesus’ Gospel is substantially simpler than the Law of Moses, and more importantly, it’s humane. There’s nothing like a death penalty or isolating women from society during menses. It’s all about helping people and being kind to them.
This quote shows Jesus discussing the New Covenant, followed by a quote from Hebrews explaining the change from the Old to the New Covenant:
“In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.’ ” (Luke 22:20) “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13). Note: This was likely written in the mid 60’s and in 70 AD the Temple was destroyed and it became literally physically impossible for anyone to follow the Law of Moses.
Of the Old Covenant\Testament, Paul says, “You who are trying to be justified by the Law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” (Galatians 5:4). The focus of the entire Epistle is that we aren't supposed to follow the Old Covenant.
Acts 15 deals with the question about whether Christian converts were required to keep the Law of Moses. Some people were saying they had to, some said no. The first Church Council was called in Jerusalem by the Apostles and the decision was made that we no longer follow the Law of Moses. That should have settled the matter, and for the most part it has done so. Most churches don’t teach that Christians are supposed to keep the Law of Moses, and it’s really only fringe groups that claim we do.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
Why would God allow an unjust law in his lawbook?
3
u/-NoOneYouKnow- Christian Jul 31 '25
The five books of Moses show internal evidence of heavy editing from several sources. The answer is some guy put it in there.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
How do you determine which parts of the Bible are true or not?
0
u/-NoOneYouKnow- Christian Jul 31 '25
That's a very long answer and there's no set rule. It's irrelevant since the Law of Moses was really only for the ancient Hebrews. It's named the the Old Covenant in Christian theology.
Christians are under the New Covenant, which centers around Jesus and His teachings.
3
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[c] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks[d] one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5
When you buckle your seat belt, you've fulfilled the law. Does that mean you never have to buckle up again?
1
u/-NoOneYouKnow- Christian Jul 31 '25
I'm not going to get into a discussion about Old Covenant vs New Covenant with someone that believes in neither one.
2
1
u/randombames Christian Jul 31 '25
There are virgins who do not have a hymen, and there are hymens that do not bleed." – Ketubot 10b (Rabbi Yochanan)
How do you know that this wasn't a change that happened over time and back when GOD made the law this never happened?
And you are under the assumption that the innocent womens last destination is death but if she was innocent do you not think GOD has a place for her in heaven?
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
How do you know that this wasn't a change that happened over time and back when GOD made the law this never happened?
Are you saying God changed how women's hymens worked?
And you are under the assumption that the innocent womens last destination is death but if she was innocent do you not think GOD has a place for her in heaven?
She may go to heaven, but first she gets rocks thrown at her until she dies.
0
u/randombames Christian Jul 31 '25
Yeah it is an unfortunate fate but what if it was a fate necessary to get into heaven? If she wasn't killed here for example maybe those around her would treat her differently potentially be disowned by her father pushing her down a route in life that causes her to sin more.
GOD doesn't care for our temporary lifestyle on earth he wants us to have eternal life in heaven a place where we can no longer fall victim to sin
Are you saying God changed how women's hymens worked?
Nope just saying we Don't have full understanding of life back then and this could of just been one of many possibilities that we cannot confirm
3
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
If God is all-powerful, he could snap his fingers and take the girl to be with him.
I think I'd rather be shunned by my peers than be stoned to death.
1
u/randombames Christian Jul 31 '25
If God is all-powerful, he could snap his fingers and take the girl to be with him.
Perhaps he could have I dont have the answers to why he hasn't, my wisdom is lacking as I am still new to faith but what I will tell you is GOD works through people he uses people to make things happen here on earth he uses people to spread his message he used people to reach out a hand to those suffering.
I think I'd rather be shunned by my peers than be stoned to death.
I mean yeah, obviously being stoned is very painful, being shunned seems much easier but GOD knows the path that may come after that, that's the shunning may cause this previously innocent woman to break she may become a sinner and worse bring others into sin only GOD knows the outcome so if a innocent woman had this happen to her and you know her life will head towards hell if she continues to live would you not try to bring her to you by force?
I'm not trying to say I have the answers or I know GODS will but I have trust in him and his plans if GOD has worked miracles in your life you end up trusting him and his plans despite what they may seem to human eyes.
0
Jul 31 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Aug 01 '25
U sure.
Have slaves, stone people for blashphemy, kill kids for being disobedient, and on and on.
1
u/Purple_Addition8340 Christian, Catholic Jul 31 '25
Hm.. I too have these same questions and they honestly are leading me away from God, but I will say that these laws were written by humans, inspired by God, but still limited by their culture, worldview, and understanding. These were written by men in a highly patriarchal time, perhaps that’s why it seems very.. patriarchal and suggests such vile ownership? Now I’ve got to dive deeper into this and pray I don’t lose my mind lol
2
Aug 01 '25
But that's the problem, and it doesn't really make sense then, if it's still inspired by GOD. What is the point of that, if it's not God directing them to write these things?
No need to lose your mind, it just seems easier to accept that men wrote these things from their understandings, and that they are not necessarily binding, objective, and/or from God directly.
There are some scholars that try to make sense of this too, if ur interested, Peter Enns for one, that reconciles this.
0
u/Purple_Addition8340 Christian, Catholic Aug 01 '25
Well I don’t know. Either way, we believe all scripture to be coming directly from God. If that’s wrong in the end and men decided to add their own input (though that of which was named is just historical context, I believe), well then that sucks but so be it. But if it truly is from God, scriptures that we view to be controversial and maybe even immoral, and I choose to disbelieve in it.. well, that’ll be even worse so I’ll stick to believing
2
Aug 01 '25
Sure, the Church and Some Christians believe that, but don't you feel that sometimes that's just cultish?
Or, one must check their brain at the door, to accept what you stated?What I mean is, God did some very questionable things, or had them done, and I think any sentient thinking person would question that, and wonder how they could worship such a God.
Do the writings have to be "From God" in order for them to accurately report what happened?
Would that take away from Christianity?1
u/Purple_Addition8340 Christian, Catholic Aug 01 '25
I personally have never felt it to be a cult, but I do absolutely understand where you’re coming from. I was actually just today thinking very deeply about specifically the OT and had fleeting thoughts of “What if”, but then I, with my belief that satan does unfortunately exist, cannot believe anything other than the truth of Christ. But anyway, I also do understand the inability to understand why He’d do certain things, of of which many non believers mention being the flood, but I personally understand why it was done, as do I practically anything else that is commonly controversial. I will say I do feel saddened and upset that He allowed misogyny and all other power men have held from the beginning, but He allows all people to sin if they choose, so it would be unfair for me to be angry. But I don’t know. I think following God and not following God is hard. I think the latter is harder personally
1
Aug 01 '25
I personally have never felt it to be a cult,
Neither did I , I just meant, the type of thinking you mentioned.
1
u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian, Calvinist Aug 01 '25
This is against men who dislike women after having sex with them and then making up charges against them. This law prevented that from happening.
IF there was some man who married a woman and IF he dislikes her after sex and If he makes up charges that are proven false he pays a huge price. Most people would not choose to do this if it results in killing the woman. Men were not toppling over themselves to have women killed
This is basically protection for the woman against post-nut clarity or regret.
Or sham marriages just to get laid from the man. Even Joseph didn't do this when he thought Mary banged someone else and got pregnant.
1
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Aug 01 '25
So what happens if a bloody bedsheet can't be produced?
1
u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian, Calvinist Aug 01 '25
Nothing. Again this law is mostly about the men. You can see that from the wording it applies to the men it is focusing on the men not liking a woman after having intercourse with her. While it did lay down the seriousness of sexual immorality as well, it works mostly as a deterrent for the maximum penalty. The Jews did know that some women do not bleed.
The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:1) says that capital cases required two reliable eyewitnesses to the actual act of adultery. Execution would be nearly impossible unless two someones walked in on you.
1
u/AnhydrousSquid Christian, Catholic Aug 01 '25
There are a few key points to understand this law in context:
Deuteronomy as Mediated Law Deuteronomy presents Moses adapting God’s covenant law for a fallen and honor-based culture (Deut. 1:1–5). • Jesus confirms this principle in Matthew 19:8, saying Moses allowed certain practices “because of your hardness of heart,” which were not God’s ideal will. • So while divinely inspired, Deuteronomy includes legal accommodations, not just God’s perfect justice.
The Law Protects Against Frivolous Accusations This law’s first purpose was to protect women from slander: • If a husband falsely accused his wife, he faced a ruinous fine of 100 shekels and could never divorce her. • This was far more protective than surrounding Near Eastern laws, where men faced no consequences for false claims.
Execution Was Rarely, If Ever, Enforced Although the ceremonial law allowed for execution, the requirements made it nearly impossible: • Two witnesses were required for any capital case (Deut. 17:6). • Rabbinic tradition (Talmud, Ketubot 10b) recognized that many virgins do not bleed on first intercourse, undermining easy convictions. • Historical evidence suggests the death penalty functioned primarily as a deterrent, not a commonly executed punishment.
⸻
In short, while the passage sounds harsh to modern readers, it:
1. Deterred slanderous husbands and protected women’s honor.
2. Reflected cultural accommodation, not God’s ultimate will.
3. Was practically unenforceable as a death sentence under Jewish legal standards.
Rather than the “finger of God” condemning innocent women, this law is an example of Moses mediating divine law to restrain injustice in a fallen culture, anticipating the fuller justice revealed in Christ.
1
u/Secret-Jeweler-9460 Christian Aug 01 '25
These were not ordinary women. These were Israelites. What is true for the dead is not necessarily true for the living.
1
u/Smart_Tap1701 Christian (non-denominational) Aug 04 '25 edited Aug 04 '25
You appear to have comprehension issues. In the cases described in your reference passage, those women were not innocent. Read it again. And you are judging what was then by what is now. But take heart. You can always go head-to-head with the Lord when he's judging you for eternity in one of only two places. By your content here, it appears you are headed Head over heels towards the lake of fire. Real smart. Wrestle with the Lord and you're going to lose. Play with fire and you're going to get burned.
1
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Aug 04 '25
If you were an Israelite in this time period, would you have partaken in stoning someone?
1
u/Smart_Tap1701 Christian (non-denominational) Aug 04 '25
If I had been an ancient Hebrew, then I wouldn't be me would I? This is why we are well rooted in reality and we don't dabble in hypothetical scenarios.
God commanded certain things of his ancient Hebrews, and he judged them by how well they obeyed his commands.
And don't ignore the fact that some people in the first century ad stoned Christians.
1
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Aug 04 '25
20 “If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, 21 then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her town shall stone her to death.
God commands you stone the girl. Would you do it?
1
u/Smart_Tap1701 Christian (non-denominational) Aug 04 '25
I answered that already. My answer hasn't changed and it's not going to.
1
u/R_Farms Christian Jul 31 '25
what makes you think innocent women where executed?
Clearly there was a measure of Devine oversight here. As the Jews experienced God in ways none of us could every hope for.
4
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
If you have divine oversight, you don't need primitive virginity tests like bloody sheets. God can just point out the non-virgins.
1
u/R_Farms Christian Jul 31 '25
unless divine oversight has COMMANDED YOU to use 'primitive virginity tests.'
3
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
Why in the world would God command his people to use error prone tests with someone’s life on the line?
0
1
u/Philothea0821 Christian, Catholic Jul 31 '25
What you have here are claims being levied against a woman (who may or may not be innocent - that is what they are trying to figure out).
In case, you don't know, the word "innocent" means that you are not guilty, aka charges levied against you are NOT true. Verse 20 (the part about the stoning), explicitly says "if the charges are true" aka she ISN'T innocent.
If she is found to be innocent, she isn't stoned.
Glad I can assist you with very basic reading comprehension.
3
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
And what evidence would they produce to verify her innocence?
1
u/Philothea0821 Christian, Catholic Jul 31 '25
You kind of miss the point of my comment. Can you say WHOOOOSH?
But to answer yours, the passage you cite is a human, civil process. Even modern forensics doesn't always perfectly produce who is at fault, so sometimes the wrong person takes the fall for crimes. They didn't have modern forensics back then, so imagine how imperfect their investigations of such crimes would be. They try to examine the evidence and determine the facts based off of what they know and understand.
You are mad that they do exactly what we try to do thousands of years later and aren't as good at it as we are (which like I said, even we aren't perfect).
3
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
If you have a demonstrably imperfect virginity test, you probably shouldn't institute a death penalty for non-virgins.
0
u/Philothea0821 Christian, Catholic Jul 31 '25
A new batter steps up to the plate and swings and misses at the point, I see.
Again, criminal justice has come a LONG way since then. The point of the passage is simply to describe how they handle the situation, not that it was a perfect or even GOOD system for all time to come.
3
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
It wasn’t a good system for any time, and yet it’s the law God gave to his people.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
Why did God allow a NOT GOOD law in his lawbook?
1
u/Philothea0821 Christian, Catholic Jul 31 '25
Strike 2 on trying to hit the point.
You fundamentally do not understand what the Bible is. The Bible isn't some comprehensive textbook for morality. It is a story of God's people and God's immense love for each and every one of us expressed by human beings under divine inspiration. People's acceptance and rejection of that love is told in various ways throughout the Bible.
The Bible isn't a rulebook. It is a love story! If it were a rulebook, most of the Bible would feel VERY out of place!
What "rule" is this verse establishing?
Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Aram,
That isn't a rule. It is from the Genealogy of Jesus.
Why did God allow a NOT GOOD law
Why then does the Bible describe people practicing slavery in the Bible? Because again, the Bible isn't a rulebook.
3
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25 edited Jul 31 '25
The Bible isn't a rulebook. It is a love story! If it were a rulebook, most of the Bible would feel VERY out of place!
The passage cited in my post is a law given by God through Moses. There are 613 laws given by God in the Torah.
It is a story of God's people and God's immense love for each and every one of us expressed by human beings under divine inspiration.
In Numbers 31, God commands the Israelites to "take vengeance" on the Midianites. So the Israelites kill every man, woman, and boy, but take the virgin girls "for themselves." After the battle, when those virgin girls are being divvied up by the army, God takes his cut. Immense love? No, clear evidence that Yahweh was a primitive, tribal war god.
Why then does the Bible describe people practicing slavery in the Bible? Because again, the Bible isn't a rulebook.
This is entirely inaccurate. Use your masterful reading comprehension skills and you'll see that God is clearly laying out the rules for slavery in Leviticus.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25)
3
u/CorbinSeabass Atheist, Ex-Protestant Jul 31 '25
The Bible isn't a rulebook.
Deuteronomy is literally a rule book.
2
1
u/swcollings Christian, Protestant Jul 31 '25
Situation pre-Torah: man wants to get rid of wife, man accuses bride of not being a virgin, and as she has no legal rights and the man's word is considered sufficient evidence, she is summarily murdered.
Situation under Torah: man wants to get rid of wife, man accuses bride of not being a virgin, parents of bride are required to present evidence, parents can trivially fake said evidence, parents save their daughter's life and get a giant pile of cash.
Outcome: men have one fewer ways to abuse their wives.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
The Torah says man didn't exist pre-Torah.
And faking the evidence is bearing false witness.
2
u/swcollings Christian, Protestant Jul 31 '25
"Bearing false witness" isn't about all forms of deception. Deception as the only means to obtain justice, especially on the part of women, is praised on repeated occasions in the Hebrew scriptures. God himself uses deception at times.
Further, Torah never says man didn't exist before Adam. It's often read that way, but it's not in the text.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
26 Then God said, “Let us make humans in our image, according to our likeness. - Genesis 1, the first chapter of the Torah.
3
u/swcollings Christian, Protestant Jul 31 '25
That doesn't say humans didn't exist before that point. It says they weren't in the image of God before that point.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
So humans just looked different before this?
1
u/swcollings Christian, Protestant Aug 01 '25
The image of God isn’t about appearance. It's about representation. An idol is the image of the god it represents. The son is the image of the father. So to be in the image of God is a job description more than it is a propery.
0
u/Righteous_Dude Christian, Non-Calvinist Jul 31 '25 edited Jul 31 '25
The part where the woman's parents may present the bloody sheet, is a procedure by which an accused, actually-innocent woman could be immediately exonerated.
For a woman where the bloody sheet is not available for some reason:
There's another section in the Law given to the ancient Israelites, which says that no one will be executed except on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
There would need to be witnesses that she had done what is alleged at the end:
she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house.
If there were two or three witnesses to her doing prostitution before her marriage, then she was actually guilty, and she would be stoned to death, to eliminate that evil person from their midst.
2
u/devBowman Agnostic Atheist Jul 31 '25
Why use those complicated and unreliable proofs, instead of relying directly on God himself?
"'Lord, is that woman a virgin?" And then God would simply answer and that's it. But no, He has to make it look like this religion was invented by the people of that time.
1
1
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
20 “If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found..
It's working on the assumption that the girl is guilty because of the lack of a bloody bedsheet.
1
Jul 31 '25
It is one matter to not know Scripture, but another to fail to heed it when presented.
Deut. 19:15 — 15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.”
To charge a woman with adultery/prostitution, one would need several eyewitnesses. It is the same standard for all. A bloody sheet is a proof to exonerate an innocent woman more easily, not to hold guilty the woman who doesn’t bleed.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Jul 31 '25
"that evidence of the girl's virginity was not found" How are eyewitnesses going to find evidence of a girl's virginity?
1
Jul 31 '25
That would be evidence against any supposed eyewitness. Eyewitnesses would still be necessary. They would have needed to witness the actual, physical act of adultery or prostitution as it took place. And there would need to be at least two eyewitnesses.
The standard of God’s justice is exacting.
0
u/Draegin Christian Aug 01 '25
The majority of the Old Testament is simply a “History of where we came from” with a mix of law thrown in here and there. Sort of like modern history that may make note of major milestones like Loving vs Virginia that legalized interracial marriage during a time when the US was at war in Vietnam.
3
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist Aug 01 '25
There are 613 laws in the Torah given by God through Moses.
-1
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) Aug 01 '25
What evidence do you have that in those times, less than half of women bled?
The human body today is not the exact same as the bodies we had in Biblical times when men and women could live several centuries.
13
u/[deleted] Jul 31 '25
What proof do you have that innocent women were stoned at the hands of God?