STUDIES IN THEOLOGY; 12/19/2006 (Divorce In The Age Of Eye For Eye? How Liberal! I Want A Year Off Of Work To Honey Moon?)

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity 12/19/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

Divorce In The Age Of Eye For Eye? I Want A Year Off Of Work To Honey Moon?

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

12/19/2006

Chapter 24 again displays a rather liberal aspect in citing the possibility of divorce through issuance of a letter. Of course at this point in time, it is rather one sided compared to the one sided aspects in the modern day, but is a progressive development all the same when considering other social standards in the same time frame both of the Israelites and other societies. ~

Even after such divorce in this period, the female could still marry another. It is only after the second divorce where any limitation is set on marriage for the female. ~

24:05 cites yet another progressive aspect in stating that a newly married man could not be drafted into the military or any other official responsibilities. In fact, it reserves one whole year provided for the man to spend at home bringing happiness to the wife. ~

It would be difficult to find such opportunity in the modern day.

The pace and expense of any semblance of comfort in living, almost entirely demands full time employment - in some cases for both the man and woman in a household. ~

I can only imagine the laughter in the moment that someone requested a year off from work to spend at home with a new wife! For much more than simply the suggestion that a position would be expected to be held for them! ~

24:06 is more display in concerns of healthy commerce practices, as well as 24:10 and 24:14. ~

Again being significant in comparison, to the era and other civilizations. ~

Yet further in such a display pertaining to an interest in healthy society through justice as well. ~

A person can easily see the potential intention(s) toward a Utopia like society, yet again beginning in 24:19 in addition to the concerns for justice and commerce. ~

It is strange though to see profound potential(s) intermingled with what is now considered nearly shocking in regard to punishments. From my perspective in the present, it does seem a bit juxtaposed at least - if not the presence of two distinct extremes.

As a note here, this tends to support further the seeming consistency of idea being introduced long before the most efficiency is derived from it within the progress of the human species. Particularly odd is that existing combination of extremes in potential.

24:16 cites an example of this, being displayed within itself almost; Parents must not be put to death for the sins of their children, nor children for the sins of their parents. Those deserving to die must be put to death for their own crimes. ~

As is seen here, there is a concern for justice - a sort of caring even... but then existing within the extreme of quite common execution. ~

Perhaps evidence of the potential within humanity itself? Such profound presence within even the most harsh of perceived brutalities. ~

Of course and admittedly, such is from my perspective of the modern day within a rather safe society, from within a very modern country. ~

Perhaps it is indicative of the balance as well - within even the progress of existence? ~

Funny how one receding seems to promote the growth of the other! Less actual justice then providing avenue for greater brutality - while less brutality doesn't seem to create the avenue for more actual justice. ~

Such itself proves the tendency of humans as I have explored concerning corruption(s). ~

Quite a precarious area in that regard. ~

Further is displayed certain human qualities concerning justice in chapter 25:01 thru 25:03 of Deuteronomy. It demonstrates yet another seemingly contrary element to the consistent brutality, in limiting the number of lashes a person may issue as punishment so as not to publicly humiliate their neighbor. ~

Then again is suggested an idea that no one at all should go hungry - and especially should not exist in a state of want. 25:04 exemplifies such in mandating that an ox troding grain should not be muzzled to keep it from eating. ~

Though it seems insignificant and perhaps irrelevant - it very much shows a certain level of such concerns - even further in extending the perceived importance of such want even with animals and menial tasks. ~

Yet further this then relates the act of eating (as per some importance - feasts and the like), though it is in this instance, that of an animal. ~

25:05 thru 25:10 again shows remarkable liberal tendencies - this time in regard to a widows recourse in not being sired by her dead husbands brother. ~

It shows a rather potent point of influence in such a situation with the ability in discrediting the family line ever afterward of the situation. ~

In such an instance, after review and judgment, the woman then spits in the brother-in laws face and declares a curse of sorts upon him after removing a sandal from his foot. ~

Beyond the aspects of influence and power in this instance - I find thoughts in regard to the general approach in this example. From my perspective in our modern day, it seems to display a larger consistency through out humanity - more so perhaps a given point in consistent tendencies within a developmental progression of affiliation in the effort to achieve recognition. ~

We still do it it seems, but in a different manner. ~

In this example, the brother in laws family will there after be known as; The family of the man whose sandal was pulled off. ~

This sort of identity through affiliation was quite common in many civilizations in this very same example of tone in relations; A name comprised of something else. Some other descriptive action.

This seems to have then progressed into using likenesses as affiliation as well - then further progressed into language derivatives, housing similar meaning of affiliation. Meaning that after some time, no longer did people directly affiliate themselves with something, some action - but affixed a language derivative (being what we know as names) in the place of direct affiliation. ~

Such is consistent in most civilizations - at least those I can call to mind presently. ~