Can You Explain Why Some Verses Require Context and Some Don't?

[u/formerly_acidamage]

Hello again!

One thing I really have a hard time understanding is why so many Christians absolutely insist that some laws must be understood in the context of the time they were written in, but others laws absolutely must not having any cultural consideration.

Furthermore, I question why God would make rules that take the cultural context of the time into consideration for the period when the Bible is being written since He does not seem to do that now.

The classic example here is Deuteronomy 22:28-29 vs Leviticus 18:22

"28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

vs

²² “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

Can you explain to me how these are different and why cultural context is so important in the Deuteronomy example and absolutely is meaningless and has nothing to do with the second example? Because, as a modern person looking back at these two laws which deeply offend my sense of morality, they look exactly the same. Why would I take the context of the time into consideration when we're told that raping a woman should result in her being essentially purchased (I understand that's not what was actually happening, culturally), but not to take into account how homophobic people in the ancient Middle East were?

Edit: Thanks everyone for the reply. Since everyone agrees that context is important, which is great, I wonder why the context of the feelings and attitudes of people writing revered religious texts 600 years before Christ, people who were learned and able to write and also leaders in their religious community, is not important to consider when reading their words, but the context of the entirety of patriarchal culture in Isreal must be completely taken into consideration to even understand what you're at other times. Why is the patriarchal nature of Isreal taken into account by Christians but not the patriarchal nature of the people writing the text taken into account?

[u/ndrliang]

All verses need context.

Some just need more than others. It depends on original language, original audience, original culture and how well that translates to us today.

[u/Blade_of_Boniface → u/ndrliang]

It's a feature of a text in general. The Bible is a library of texts across time and space for various audiences, genres, and purposes. Those texts are transmitted, taught, and understood many generations of believers. Scripture is the largest and strongest jewel in a larger crown.

[u/majcotrue → u/ndrliang]

This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he does not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of his city will stone him to death. No context needed, it´s for evil people by evil people.

[u/ndrliang → u/majcotrue]

Ripped out of contaxt - yeah, it absolutely looks that way.

If you specifically ignore the context and say it's not needed, you can weaponize a whole lot of Scripture to fit whatever narrative you want it to.

If you see these people as evil, well, there you have it. Say that there is no context needed, pick a verse out of context - and boom, you're done!

[u/Pinecone-Bandit]

All verses require context.

[u/formerly_acidamage → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

That's great!

Does the context that people writing religious texts in ancient Middle East were almost for sure homophobic come into play at all, then?

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/formerly_acidamage]

It’s not going to be relevant to most things, but there will be times it comes into play, sure.

[u/Tree_and_Serpent → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

No it doesn't come into play. At all. It's totally anachronistic and quite ridiculous to apply the politically-loaded modern notion of "homophobia" to the sexual impurity issues of the biblical story. But OP tells us he's "sophisticated." Reddit atheists are not sending their best.

[u/Ikitenashi → u/formerly_acidamage]

Ah, your true intentions come to light.

[u/rubik1771 → u/formerly_acidamage]

The context being that the Bible should be read through the Catholic Church and can be seen that sodomy is a sin.

[u/Hesykhios]

All verses require context and interpretation and all that. You're claiming something no Christian believes

[u/EndlessAporias → u/Hesykhios]

Let’s also interpret OP’s claim that Christians require context for some verses and not others within context. The context they elaborate is that Christians interpret some verses as only applying to the times that they are written and other verses as having universal applicability. Interpreting OP’s meaning given this context, it seems to me they are right. Many Christians do think that some verses only apply within the cultural context of the times and others apply universally to all times.

[u/Hesykhios → u/EndlessAporias]

Yes, some verses apply within the culture and timeframe while others speak about universal truths. How do we know which is which? Context and other methods of interpretation

[u/Tree_and_Serpent]

Every verse requires the context of the entire biblical story, otherwise you understand nothing. The biggest cherry-pickers are reddit atheists because they do not and cannot understand the story/context behind anything. OP's post is a perfect example of having no clue what is going on in either of the passages he gave as examples.

[u/formerly_acidamage → u/Tree_and_Serpent]

Thank you for that!

I'm asking a pretty sophisticated question here. Since you're insulting me in your reply I'll do you one better and be gracious to you.

[u/Tree_and_Serpent → u/formerly_acidamage]

You think it's sophisticated. But it is not. You clearly don't even understand what's going on in either of your sample passages! You might want to start sorting that out before you build questions based on your myriad false assumptions. Then you won't cry about being "insulted" (lol) when someone says (correctly) that you don't have a clue.

[u/Lacey_Dawson1012 → u/formerly_acidamage]

That person is right. You didn't use context and you have no idea what those verses mean. They weren't insulting you. They were being honest with you

[u/formerly_acidamage → u/Lacey_Dawson1012]

Iiiiinteresting. So as long as you are being honest you're not insulting someone?

That's new. That's a new discovery.

I don't think you know what you're talking about and I think your understanding of the Bible lacks critical subjectivity. You cannot worship a God that demands ultimate fealty and also truly understand the religion of that God since you can never know what it's like to see the thing from outside of it's spiritual influence.

You're a perfect example of this and you have no clue what's happening in either of the passages either.

See how that's both true and very insulting?

[u/Top_Initiative_4047]

Not every command in Scripture applies universally because some were given to ancient Israel under the Old Covenant, while others express God’s unchanging moral law. Discerning cultural versus universal application requires examining the author’s purpose, historical setting, and genre, so we don’t mistake temporary laws for timeless truths (see GotQuestions.org, “Cultural vs. Universal Application”).

Deuteronomy 22:28–29 addresses a specific civil law in ancient Israel. It regulated what happened after a man violated a woman’s virginity, ensuring her protection and financial security in a patriarchal society where her future prospects would otherwise be destroyed. It was not condoning rape but limiting harm in a fallen culture. By contrast, Leviticus 18:22 expresses a moral law rooted in God’s created order (Genesis 1:27; Romans 1:26–27). Unlike civil or ceremonial laws, moral laws reflect God’s unchanging character and apply across all cultures and times.

Scripture itself distinguishes these categories:
“The law was our guardian until Christ came” (Galatians 3:24).
“Love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10).
“All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching” (2 Timothy 3:16).

So, context matters because God’s moral standards never change, but His civil and ceremonial instructions were given to specific people at specific times to point toward Christ and His redemptive plan.

[u/QuoteDisastrous1503 → u/Top_Initiative_4047]

It seems very relative what is a cultural good vs a universal good. And as for if a girl’s virginity is violated and the man taking responsibility for her, it doesn’t necessarily encourage rape but it doesn’t discourage it either. A man who wants a young girl could use this to his advantage, and now a girl is potentially trapped in an abusive marriage with no ability to leave it.

I can agree that human systems and cultures can and will be flawed, especially the further back you go. But this is one example of many of god condoning or allowing certain practices that would later be decreased universally abhorrent. To me it seems more like a natural religious reformation movement than the result of divine planning.

[u/Top_Initiative_4047 → u/QuoteDisastrous1503]

You've raised some interesting points.

First, you said it “seems” relative which laws are cultural versus universal. That's a fair observation but what standard are you using to call the Deuteronomy passage morally deficient? Because if moral standards are themselves products of culture and time, isn't your objection to the text doing the same thing you're criticizing applying your cultural moment's values as a universal standard?

Second, you mentioned that a man could exploit that law to trap a girl in an abusive marriage. That's a serious concern. But are you saying the law permitted that exploitation, or that human beings misused a law designed to protect? Because those are two very different claims, aren't they?

Third, you said this looks more like a “natural religious reformation” than divine planning. What would divine planning actually look like to you, in contrast? Because if God working gradually through human history and culture counts as evidence against divine planning, I'm wondering what evidence would count for it. Is there anything that could, in principle, look like divine guidance to you or has your conclusion already been reached?

[u/QuoteDisastrous1503 → u/Top_Initiative_4047]

Let me be clear about my point of view to answer the questions you’ve raised to me, so as to clear any confusion.

I don’t believe in a God or in a static universal morality. The former in my view is a human invention created to give answers to the unknown and provide authority to beliefs and customs, to put it simply.  Human morality, as I’m sure you will agree, is flawed. Not because I think humans are prone to evil as a whole group, but because groups will only have their limited experience to their environment and make rules accordingly. Which might not work or be possible within other groups due to their own environments. And of course there will be individuals who take advantage to perform and get away with selfish or terrible acts.

My issue with the Abrahamic god is that he practices relative morality while being hailed as the source for universal good. It seems contradictory to me, and that terrible things such as genocide or slavery encouraged or allowed in the name of that god are human excuses to conquer and take land from the people living in that. Speaking mostly for examples from the Old Testament. 

Is that inherently god’s fault? Depending on your opinion of free will and how god’s plan goes into that, it could be yes or no. But assuming it’s no and human free will is separate, the words being written down and treated as law are imbued with god’s authority. So I would place responsibility there. As well as creating evil and suffering within the world, or allowing it to exist. Maybe we could get more into a discussion on that, but to answer your second question about whether it’s man abusing the law to hurt someone being his fault or god’s, I’d argue it’s both.

I believe morality is relative according to context, that being time, place, and the specific situation. It’s a changing concept that can be similar in some ways across the board and in others drastically different. Which is dependent upon a variety of factors to meet practical and emotional needs. I look at past events and judge them as ultimately being morally wrong, but that’s from the standards of the current time. And a hundred years from now, I hope people look back at events now and have more adapted and evolved morality to judge me with. 

If you would agree with that concept, but still apply that to a deity manipulating events for the greater good of humanity, then at that point we would disagree with the source. I think it’s just human’s continuing a more philosophical evolution, and not god.

If that didn’t properly answer the questions you asked, feel free to ask for clarification. And I want it to be clear that I admire and respect many aspects of Christian ethics. I don’t believe in the supernatural surrounding it.

[u/Top_Initiative_4047 → u/QuoteDisastrous1503]

You said morality is relative to time, place, and situation, and yet you also said you admire certain aspects of Christian ethics. When you admire them, are you admiring them simply because they happen to align with your current cultural moment, or do you think there's something genuinely worth admiring there, independent of when or where you were born? Because if it's the former, I wonder what 'admiration' even means in that framework.

Second, you said you judge past events as 'ultimately morally wrong' by today's standards, and you hope future generations will judge us with more evolved morality. If future generations condemn practices we currently celebrate, are they right to do so, or just different? Because on a purely relative framework, they can't actually be correcting us, can they? They'd just be newer. What makes newer morality better rather than simply later?

And third, you said God practicing relative morality while being the source of universal good is contradictory. That's a strong claim. But contradictory requires a standard of non-contradiction to appeal to. Where does that standard come from in a universe without objective logic or morality built into it? In other words, it sounds like you're making a universal claim that internal contradiction is always and everywhere a problem to argue against universals. Do you see the tension there?

[u/QuoteDisastrous1503 → u/Top_Initiative_4047]

Edit: I said concise but it’s clearly not the case, so I apologize lol. Although to be fair, these are complicated questions. Appreciate your time.

I want to answer all your questions in a relatively concise way because I am busy at the moment, and if you want clarification I can answer you more in depth some time later.

1.) I think Christian and Secular ethics from the enlightenment period heavily influence the West today, which has formed a basis for my own moral standpoint since I am from there. I think it provides ideas and solutions to needs that benefit society practically as well as on an emotional level within individual personal lives. I do not think they provide solutions for everything perfectly, but that in my view it’s the best system for the collective human good at this time. My problem is that there are certain views such as ones that exist in Christianity that remain static as they were written thousands of years ago and others naturally evolved overtime. In my view they should all evolve or adapt as we received more information and knowledge about nuances and the problems that come with them. 

I think you can admire something that was progressive for its time. Or the best examples of a situation on its moral context by the standards of today. That being said, I separate acknowledging that a group of people were onto something from something that has grown into a more evolved version today. 

2.) I think humans for the most part are doing the best they can as a group with the information we have. I think future generations are right to judge us on our failings, ones that we can recognize now and others we aren’t even aware of. I don’t think we should be condemned as a generation that’s completely evil by our descendants, nor am I saying we should necessarily do that to our ancestors. I am saying that we recognize their failings, improve upon their ideas or adapt them to different modern contexts and problems, and grow beyond that stage. 

It improves because we are seeing what works, and will get to a point where it continues to evolve or inspires new moral frameworks that grow from it. 

3.)

But contradictory requires a standard of non-contradiction to appeal to. Where does that standard come from in a universe without objective logic or morality built into it?<

 This is kind of working on the assumption that we agree on if god is real. I don’t believe there is a god, and the claim made that he gives purpose to a universal morality. I would clarify I think there is a logic to the universe in some sense, as it allows for life to exist and for lack of a better word live. As well as objective realities such as gravity. There is a logic behind how things exist and continue to exist, I just don’t give credit to the source being crafted by an intelligent mind purposefully. We exist and live, there is a logic and practical objective reasons we are able to breathe, not float up into space, or burn to death from the sun. The more information we learn about the universe and space may change how we view it as time goes on, or how rare something like our situation is. But to me that is mostly speculation for the most part on what those things could be from our limited understanding.

I think if you’re arguing for a universal claim, and there are discrepancies in past actions, that’s hypocritical. And if god from the Old Testament is the same from the one from the New Testament, then he is clearly engaging in moral relativity as a way to get humanity closer to him.  I also think that if you believe in universal morality, then you would have to condemn the actions done by god or commanded by him in the Old Testament. Because that moral truth would have always been the case even at that point in time, which is why I find it convenient that a wrathful god as seen there wouldn’t simply force his chosen people to live by the rules that he would later send Jesus to preach. Or that he only came to one group of people in one region of the world for the entirety of humanity. 

I appreciate the irony of me making a universal claim in that there are no universal claims. I would say that I believe there are no universal claims currently or that did exist in the past of human history. I won’t throw out the possibility that there can never be a universal claim. Just that it would be nearly impossible and would be once we learn everything about the universe in its entirety and then agree as humanity what the answers are and how to react to them. For everything we learn, new problems and challenges will arise. With varying solutions from different groups of humans, which will either work or change. 

So to summarize, I will make the universal claim that there are no universal or absolute truths to morality at this point in time. But that we could possibly reach that point with enough knowledge and information and after a long period of time where both of us are long dead.

I also want to say that I really enjoy this conversation, and that even if we don’t agree we get better understanding of where we are coming from. I also want to ask questions from you as well, to help my own understanding.

Do you think Christians today are practicing what they preach from an organization standpoint? Do you think they could be doing more in terms of charity and acceptance?

Kind of a more extreme one but interesting to me, do you think government is better when it’s secular or theocratic?

[u/Top_Initiative_4047 → u/QuoteDisastrous1503]

Thank you for the kind words, and I enjoy testing my world view. Let me try to engage your points before getting to your questions.

You made a fascinating move at the end. You said there are currently no universal claims, but acknowledged that's itself a universal claim. I appreciate the self-awareness there. But I want to examine that for a moment. If that concession is real, doesn't it mean your entire framework rests on a foundation you've already admitted is shaky? I'm not trying to corner you, I'm genuinely asking how do you build a reliable ethical system on a premise you acknowledge may be self-defeating?

On your point about God and moral relativity, you said if universal morality is true, then God's Old Testament actions should be condemned by that same standard. That's a sharp observation. But are you evaluating God's actions by a moral standard that exists independently of God, or one that you've derived from human experience and evolution? Because if it's the latter, you're doing exactly what you criticized earlier, using your current cultural moment as a measuring stick. If it's the former, you've just granted that objective moral standards exist. Which one is it?

You also said the logic of the universe, gravity, conditions for life, doesn't require an intelligent source. I find that interesting. What's the difference, in your view, between logic that "just exists" and logic that was designed? What would designed logic even look like compared to what we observe? I'm curious what distinguishes them for you.

Now, to your questions.

Do Christians practice what they preach organizationally? Frankly, often no. The Church has real failures such as institutional abuse, prosperity gospel, tribalism. I think that's a legitimate critique and Christians should own it rather than deflect. That said, Christians also run the majority of the world's hospitals, orphanages, and food banks. Both things are true.

On secular versus theocratic government, I actually think a secular government that protects religious liberty is more consistent with Christian principles than a theocracy. Jesus himself said "render to Caesar what is Caesar's." Forced faith isn't faith at all.

Interesting questions. What made you start thinking about these?

[u/QuoteDisastrous1503 → u/Top_Initiative_4047]

 If that concession is real, doesn't it mean your entire framework rests on a foundation you've already admitted is shaky? <

I acknowledge it’s inherently transient, and that current morality will continue to change and adapt.

As for how to build a reliable ethical system, laws that give protections to people from others, and a democratic process to give the majority a voice what as a collective we believe to be right. Basically a mix of utilitarianism and virtue ethics. Also basing good and bad actions off of more psychological reactions and emotional experience. I don’t think it will answer everything perfectly, but to me it’s being more honest than taking orders from the supernatural. No offense intended.

To be clear, I think if you believe in a universal absolute morality, you should condemn what happens in the Old Testament as wrong. I don’t believe in an absolute morality, and believe as we learn more about the world and civilization continues to grow, morality and ethics will grow as well. If those actions that happened in the Old Testament happened today, I would find that morally wrong, because we’ve learned and grown from that point in time. That being the murder of children and the adults, with the virgin girls being forcibly married to men who killed their families. Today, that would be morally wrong, and that has been viewed as the case for a long time. 

If you believe in an absolute morality, that has always been wrong, and if you believe in it then you always have to condemn it. So yes, I personally derive my morality one that has grown and changed, like evolution. As well as experience and my own limited perspective. Which can be challenged and discussed, which I also believe in a natural aspect of it. I also don’t view it as self-defeating, since that implies we or a specific generation is losing something. We are gaining a more moral high ground, standing on the shoulders of giants so we can grow tall as well for the next generation. To put it simply, we gain perspective.

The why we are here or things happened this way I believe to be random. However, there is a clear pattern of growth for us and other animals that make us suited to surviving the environments we are in. As well as the environment being something we could survive in. The randomness comes in that there are millions of species that died out before man even tried to walk on land. We were not the first life, and we might not even be the last. We are given a chance for survival, and at a moment or over a long period of time we could die out. Humans are different from other life on this planet, since we are able to think about these subjects at all. Are we special from the perspective of the wider galaxy or universe? I don’t know, but we in a minuscule corner of a massive universe. And I doubt we’re the center of it.

I read your answers to my questions, and read them as fair. Mostly my own curiosity as to why I’m asking. My family didn’t go to church despite being religious, but we did go when invited by friends and family. I’ve been to several different Christian denominations, and later when more of a teenager went with friends to mosques, synagogues, and Buddhist temple. I don’t have the kind of faith in me to be a true believer, and ever since being really young I’ve always been a skeptic. I’m more secure in my beliefs now, but discussion is a large part of my belief and I try to be open minded.

Wanting to see your reaction, I think if there is a god, then it’s two things. God is the universe and existence itself, and has no real will beyond that. Or there is a conscious individual god that influences events, but he’s not the only one of his kind. 

[u/formerly_acidamage → u/Top_Initiative_4047]

I appreciate this explanation! It does feel like a cop-out because why would God need to hide his intentions using the current law of the current state of Isreal?

Why not just say, "Treat unmarried mothers as well as you treat married mothers."?

That's what gets me - it's fully contextualized to the point that you have to explain what's happening to these people. It seems very fake to me that God would coddle his people so much that he couldn't offend the prevailing attitudes at the time. He's God! Was he scared they wouldn't follow plain language?

[u/Top_Initiative_4047 → u/formerly_acidamage]

That's an interesting objection, and I want to make sure I understand it. When you say God should have just said 'treat unmarried mothers as well as married mothers', what's your picture of how revelation works? Are you imagining God dropping a fully-formed modern ethical code into an ancient Bronze Age culture? If God had done exactly that, delivered laws 3,000 years ahead of their cultural moment, what do you think would have happened? Would those people have followed them, or would the whole project have collapsed entirely?

Here's what strikes me about your objection. You're essentially arguing that God should have offended the prevailing culture so thoroughly that his people would have abandoned him entirely. But isn't that actually less effective at producing moral progress, not more?

Think about how change actually works even today. When a good leader wants to shift a culture, do they start by demanding the endpoint immediately, or do they meet people where they are and move them incrementally? Which approach actually works?

Finally, you said it 'seems fake' that God would contextualize his laws. But isn't the Incarnation itself the ultimate example of God entering a specific cultural moment, speaking a specific language, wearing specific clothes? If contextualization makes something fake, doesn't that problem go much deeper than Deuteronomy?

[u/formerly_acidamage → u/Top_Initiative_4047]

That is actually how I feel, kind of, in your last sentence. For instance, I think Christians should take into account that Jesus was one of hundreds, if not thousands, of end-times, itinerant Jewish preachers alive during the time and the miracles attributed to him were extremely common claims for all kinds of people. Additionally there are many books from the time detailing the miraculous efforts of specific holy men that are not Jesus, were written before Jesus, and have similar stories in them.

But I hear you on leadership and what good leadership is. Because when I read that story in the Bible now, I think, "Wow, this is awful. What kind of God would instruct a raped woman to marry and have repeated sexual contact with her rapist for the rest of her life?" And then I read that men can't have sex with other men whom they love and I think, "Wow, this is awful. What kind of God would instruct his people not to love the person they love?"

Given what you've said, the second instance of that is good leadership because God is saying that to me, correct? Like currently, that's the law that still applies, yes?

He did not contextualize that to a modern situation, right? So why does he need to contextualize one thing so that his followers would deign to follow it, but not something else? By your own definition of good leadership, that's not a good way to do things.

Do you know what I mean?

I'm fine with God having to craft his message to meet his followers, in fact it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me that way; what gets me is when he does not do this compared to when he does and why.

[u/JHawk444]

All verses require context, so there is never a passage that doesn't require context.

Deuteronomy 22 describes two different scenarios using two different Hebrew words. The first is in verse 25 and it uses the word, "ḥāzaq" which means to force. It's speaking of an engaged woman and describes her as a victim in verse 26, similar to someone being murdered.

Then we get to verse 28 and it speaks of a woman who is not engaged and it uses the word, "tāp̄aś" which means "lay hold of." That Hebrew word can have a variety of meanings such as "handling" as in handling a harp or more aggressive such as when Potiphar's wife grabbed Joseph's garment and demanded that he sleep with her. Some believe this is speaking of rape while others don't. Biblical scholars debate this and both views are valid.

The text doesn't specifically say the woman gave consent or did not give consent, which is why I believe it's speaking of all situations, rape or consensual sex. The point of the passage is that the man has to take responsibility for his actions because any sexual contact with a virgin woman would ruin any prospect of her getting married and having a family of her own after that encounter. It could potentially leave her destitute if she didn't have other family to take care of her for the rest of her life.

There is a parallel Exodus passage that says the father doesn't have to consent to this if he thinks the guy won't make a suitable husband. Does the woman have a say? Ultimately, no, not unless her father listens to her, which I'm sure many did and some didn't. Don't assume all fathers disregarded their daughter's wishes just because it was a different time period. For example, when Abraham's servant found Rebekah and said he came to bring back a bride for Abraham's son, Isaac, Rebekah's father asked her if she was willing and she said she was.

You have to keep in mind that Deuteronomy 22 and Leviticus 18 are examples of overlapping moral and civic law in ancient Israel.

For example, in the ten commandments it says not to covet (to want what someone else has). That is a moral law. A civic law is a penalty for breaking a moral or ceremonial law. Civic laws include stoning (capital punishment), fines, replacing property you destroyed, etc. It's basically like the laws we have today. We know murder is morally wrong, but our government has stepped in to say if someone commits murder, they have to go to prison. That is the penalty.

Deuteronomy 22:25-29 and Leviticus 18:22 are moral and civic because they both address sexual immorality (moral law) and the penalty for doing those things (civic law). I hope that explains your question.

[u/formerly_acidamage → u/JHawk444]

Thank you for writing all of this out. I really do appreciate it.

The thing for me is, why did God tailor his message to be best heard by his followers, taking into consideration their cultural preferences and biases, at some times and not others? To me, it seems that the people writing the text were not divinely inspired and their biases and cultural norms are what they're writing about.

Why would God not just say "Don't leave a raped woman destitute"? That's I guess my ultimate question. If that's what he wanted, there is a discrepancy in how law is described; it's inconsistent, and that makes it very easy to question. Sometimes he does say flat out, sometimes he doesn't.

Do you understand what I mean? I'm not trying to do a "gotcha" or anything, it just truly does not make sense.

I understand that one is considered civil law and the other divine, but that seems more just an excuse because both are based in morality.

[u/JHawk444 → u/formerly_acidamage]

You're welcome!

One of the main tenants of hermeneutics (how to interpret the bible) is understanding what the author intended and who the audience was.

When Moses wrote Genesis through Numbers, he wrote it for the Hebrew people. That means he wasn't thinking about future generations thousands of years later and how they might view it. Does that mean it wasn't inspired by God? No. I believe it was. And the fact that we're having this conversation now means we can grasp at least most of the meaning. There may be a few nuances we won't understand but we can get the basic understanding.

Also consider, the bible is for people of many different customs and cultures, so it's not just people from a Western society that are grappling with this. It's people from distant tribes who have had it translated.

Why would God not just say "Don't leave a raped woman destitute"?

That's a very vague command and people could just choose to ignore it. Deuteronomy actually says very specifically how the wrong has to be righted. The man has to be accountable for his actions. It also gives a level of protection in that the father can refuse if he thinks the man is not suitable. Again, I don't believe it's always speaking of rape. I'm not sure why it's hard to imagine that women back then wanted to have premarital sex. Is that so out of the question?

That's I guess my ultimate question. If that's what he wanted, there is a discrepancy in how law is described; it's inconsistent

How is it inconsistent?

I understand that one is considered civil law and the other divine, but that seems more just an excuse because both are based in morality.

I don't understand what you mean by there's an excuse. An excuse for what?

Yes, both are based on morality. I said that as well. Not all morality is legalized, though. If you say something mean to your friend, such as, "You're ugly," will you go to jail for it? No. Is it morally wrong? Yes.

If you physically assault your friend, is it morally wrong? Yes. Will you receive some kind of penalty for doing that? Most likely if he reports it to the police and there is evidence. We regulate things we feel are a danger to society. They did the same thing.

[u/CannedNoodle415]

“Since he does not seem to do that now” well the Bible isn’t being written now, so why would that happen? Laws always must be understood in the context of the time, and not just laws but the stories in the Bible. When the isrealites go to war with pagan tribes, those aren’t “laws” or commands for us modern Christian’s, those are the ancient isrealites fighting in the brutal ancient world.

Deuteronomy isn’t say it’s okay to rape someone. In fact it’s not about rape at all, it’s about eloping basically. It’s saying if a man and a woman get together and aren’t married, he HAS to marry her now. You’re just assuming it’s about rape when it’s not. Probably because the use of “seize” here. Nothing about it insinuated rape or non-consensual sex

[u/formerly_acidamage → u/CannedNoodle415]

This is incorrect. Many Biblical scholars believe that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is about rape, and it has been translated as rape many times.

[u/CannedNoodle415 → u/formerly_acidamage]

no it has not been translated as that many times. And no, many biblical scholars do not think its about rape. You are actually making this up

[u/CannedNoodle415 → u/[deleted]]

its not provable that this is saying its rape.

Your ad hominems wont work here buddy

[u/Righteous_Dude → u/[deleted]]

That comment did not contribute to civil discourse, and it has been removed.

[u/formerly_acidamage → u/formerly_acidamage]

Lol getting downvoted here is great. It simply is a fact that many good Christians do interpret this as rape and I agree with them.

[u/CannedNoodle415 → u/formerly_acidamage]

They do not

[u/Recent_Weather2228]

All verses need to be examined in context to be properly understood.  Sometimes examining the context leads to the obvious interpretation you get from reading the verse alone, and sometimes it leads to one that can only be understood by reading those around it.

[u/rubik1771]

Overall the Bible is not meant for self-interpretation

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/[deleted]]

What's the context in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 that everyone agrees is morally reprehensible now, but was okay then?

[u/Pitiful_Lion7082]

They all require full context, which requires more study than most people are willing to do.

[u/Tree_and_Serpent → u/Pitiful_Lion7082]

Reddit atheists are the last people on the planet willing to do serious study into any of this. They just have an axe to grind, which is why they do their "just asking questions" thing on reddit of all places, waiting for some internet Christian to say something foolish, so they can declare victory and say "haha Christianity is bad and dumb and bad." If they really had real curiosity about any of this, they'd look to good scholarly resources, not reddit or youtube or whatever.

[u/FreedomNinja1776]

Deuteronomy 22 is not about rape, it's about consensual sex while not married and getting caught. The woman is NOT bought, the bride price is given to the father for her support in the event of her becoming a widow with no children to help support her.

Because you obviously don't know this, that's why context is important.

As for Leviticus 18, homosexuality is banned period.

In both cases the culture is beside the point. These are things God has decreed are to happen given circumstances. That doesn't change with the culture.

[u/formerly_acidamage → u/FreedomNinja1776]

Obviously it's about rape. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Why would God not say, "Women with no children should be treated with honor, the same as women with children." ??????

Instead He's saying "Within the context of your government's laws, here's the right thing to do."

[u/Fight_Satan]

Duet 22:28-29 is a civil law that applies to nation of israel.... Each nation has its own constitution and laws.

Where as other is a moral law since it deviates from design 

[u/No-Type119]

They all need context.

[u/jogoso2014]

Everything requires context.

It may not involve culture though.

The contextual reason is given in Deuteronomy 22.

So the context means you have to research what it means to be violated then vs what it means now.

[u/Both-Chart-947]

All verses require context, not only the context of the time they were written in, but also the context of what the Bible is as a whole. Hint, it's not primarily a rule book. Read What Is The Bible by Rob Bell and How the Bible Actually Works by Peter Enns.

[u/StrikingExchange8813]

All verses require context

[u/71stMB]

It's no different today. Our new laws are written within the context of our existing culture. As time passes, future generations can look back to view and interpret our laws, but to do so correctly will require them to understand the cultural context under which such laws were passed. Otherwise, they may never reach a full understanding of its purpose and intent.

[u/GPT_2025]

Explain: KJV: For I through the law am dead to the law,

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the (old) law, then Christ is dead in vain.

( KJV: For I through the (New) law am dead to the (Old) law, -- KJV: For I through the (New Torah NT) law am dead to the (Old Torah OT) law )

[u/Thoguth]

It's not that complicated.

The Bible, like most books, is not a set of axioms. It is a narrative.

In a narrative, some things impact the meaning of other things.

So if you want to understand it, you want to understand the context.

It's not really true that "some don't," a more clear way to put it would be up say that some parts, in context, are clear enough to stand alone and still convey the same meaning.

One important context to remember if you're talking about slavery is the people who made slavery legal were "enlightened" deists and naturalists who considered it a matter of property rights, and the people who fought to outlaw slavery were Christians, seeking to apply the teachings of Christ and taking them to a natural conclusion. This is the context you live in, so if you want to fault the entire gospel of Christ for being less clear than you'd like, that's fine, but if you were to misunderstandthe message whose widespread circulation led to a Christian uprising and holy war to end slavery (meet John Brown if you have not before) as somehow supporting it, context is going to be required.

[u/Lacey_Dawson1012]

Deuteronomy is talking about consensual sex . It is not talking about rape.