Skip to main content

A test for what? Numbers 5

This being a blog and not an academic paper, I will give you this statement with no real evidence: a large percentage of violence in this country is visited upon one lover by another in a fit of rage. I saw the numbers in part of the ongoing gun-control debate—statistics that can be shaded to both sides, honestly, and cannot now find them. So, I will not assert a specific amount, but I will assert this: there is substantial statistical evidence that being in a romantic relationship that goes bad increases the risk of violence in one’s life.

Why is that?

Because our hearts, and our sexual passions, are not particularly fond of rational behavior or reasonable choices. These are frequently the drivers of our romantic entanglements rather than our logical, reasonable sides. So, when there is damage in the relationship, it does not always end well. The most typical, I think, is self-harm but the close second is to lash out at the other in the relationship.

This amplifies when one feels like betrayal has entered into the situation. When one’s trust has been abused or one’s love taken advantage of, we tend to be even more out of control than if we were just slapped by a random stranger.

Now, when you take that situation and mix it with a culture that establishes strict penalties for adultery, there is a major risk. Mix it with a culture that establishes a strong patriarchal structure and it gets worse. What is a wife to do, for example, if she is accused by her husband? He will not take her word for anything, and adultery, unlike many other crimes, rarely has true witnesses. Especially in those days…fewer private eyes with telephoto lenses.

We have to place ourselves into this mindset before we come to Numbers 5 and the Adultery Test. This was a society that needed a way to protect against the foolishness of men. To insulate women who were, by the nature of the culture, dependent on men, from the fragile male ego.

Now, it is easy for us to simply read this section and write it off as just that: the product of a by-gone era and lamentable because women were not simply elevated to equal status in that society. If that is as far you want to read, then you can. I do not, however, think the Old Testament is given so that we can feel superior and more advanced than a culture organized about 3500 years ago.

Honestly, if all you have is that you are more enlightened than people from three-and-a-half millennia ago, your self-esteem is in the wrong place.

Instead, let us take a look at what we can possibly learn from this passage, shall we?

1. We can learn that even among the people of God, sin happens. This should be obvious, but we miss it: people sin. Sometimes, people sin by assuming someone else has sinned and rushing to judgment. Other times, people sin and think they have gotten away with it.

2. We can learn not to trust self-investigation. The husband was to seek outside help in determining guilt here, and the wife was to trust the outside help to uphold her innocence. In the Old Testament it was the priest, but we have more specialized investigators these days. If you need someone investigated for observing Easter on the wrong date, I can handle that. Got a crime? Let us call the Arkansas State Police, ok?

3. We can learn to wait for the evidence. I know that CSI solves it in an hour. Guess what? Toxicology takes weeks because of the chemistry involved. The Adultery Test here, it might have taken some time. Wait for the evidence. Justice delayed is justice denied, but justice uncertain is not justice, either—wait for the evidence.

That is not to say that you will always have certainty. But if there is evidence that can be developed, wait for it to all be brought in.

4. We can learn that people need strange things to get along in society. I can find no mention in my OT sources that this was ever recorded as being used, but such trial-by-ordeal ideas lasted for centuries. People did this to each other because trust breaks down so easily. We have to be trustworthy people to be trusted, and we have to extend to others the opportunity to be trusted.

In all, this passage is odd. If we were to re-edit the Bible, we’d likely just leave it out. But it’s there, so we read it, discuss it, and move on. It is part of the Law, but we see in Romans how the Law only helped us see what sin we had, and how we are free to walk in the Spirit. Let’s do so, and not keep testing other people’s faithfulness.

Today’s Nerd Note: Take a look at Numbers 5:8: there is a line here about how the restitution for wrong was to be given to the one wronged, and if there was no one left, then it went to the religious structures. Remember that there was a complete unity of religion and government at the time.

Justice was about striving to make right to the person wronged, first. Society had an interest in that, but not a profit interest. Our society, with its failing justice structures, has inverted this: victims are rarely even considered in the making-whole process and instead the system benefits the most: lawyers are paid, fines are collected, the state takes custody. Along the way, eventually, the owners of stolen property pay $300 to get their trailer from the impound lot, people pay their own therapy bills or their own medical bills, and the system overlooks them.

How could we improve justice structures by making restoration to the victim the priority?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Independence Day 2017

I don’t know if Thomas Paine will be aggrieved that I paste his thoughts from Common Sense here, from the electronic edition. It’s a Public Domain work at this point, so hopefully none will be bothered that I am not paying for it...I think there is value in seeing the underlying reasons of Independence. I find a couple of things noteworthy in his introduction:First, he speaks of those who disagree and, while calling those out, holds the strength of his affirmative argument will be enough to straighten them out. We could do well to think more like that.Second, his final sentence should be a required view: the influence of reason and principle. Not self-interest masquerading as principle. Not party propaganda disguised as reason.That being said, not everything Paine said is right. If he and I lived at the same time, we’d argue religion over a great deal. However, the idea of “natural rights of man” follows from the idea of humanity as a special creation—that all are created equal and en…