Beyond the case law of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 not being about premarital sex, the Bible obviously teaching gender equality from the start, and the idiocy of a certain misrepresentation of the case law which I have encountered, all of which were addressed in part one [1], there is a little more to clarify up front that helps make it obvious what this passage that mentions virginity and execution is and is not saying. If anyone denies the formerly mentioned things or the things I am about to state, or makes assumptions having read or not read the Bible without letting go of those assumptions, they are a fool who is worthy of scorn and mockery rather than any sort of friendliness. More Biblical context is to be detailed before the full scope and ramifications of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 can be understood, such as how virginity is not morally demanded for men or women before marriage, although casual sex is sinful. This is vital since an easy assumption for non-rationalists to make, Christians and non-Christians like, is that this passage is saying virginity is a moral requirement prior to marriage, especially for women. It says no such thing, so it cannot be prescribing any sexist expectation for virginity that only applies to women!
As a disclaimer, though I initially intended for this series to only have two parts, it will now be at least three parts long. There are simply too many examples selected about the relevant categories below to fit in many of the additional points I was planning on including here.
Virginity Before Marriage Is Not A Biblical Obligation
Yes, noncommittal sex is immoral according to the Bible--see Exodus 22:16-17. However, as mentioned in the first part of this series, parental objection can release someone from the obligation to marry an unmarried, unengaged person one has consensual sex with (again, Exodus 22:16-17), but there is also the issue of people who are divorced. They are allowed to remarry to new spouses (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), and yet if they had sex in their prior marriage(s), they would by necessity not be virgins at this time. Sex with the person one is engaged to, likewise, is not condemned among any of the sexual sins of the Torah, which the Bible itself says not to add to (Deuteronomy 4:2). In fact, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 describes engaged men and women as in a sense already being married. If sex outside of legal marriage or formal engagement is not automatically sinful as Exodus 22:16-17 entails, then it certainly would not be evil by default within an engagement relationship.
Lastly and most importantly, losing one's virginity against one's wishes is not sinful independent of these other reasons as Deuteronomy 22:25-27 explicitly clarifies, for the lack of mutual consent is what makes what would otherwise be casual sex or adultery or premature adultery (sex with a person whom one is not married/engaged to who is engaged to someone else) rape. Deuteronomy 22:13-21, then, obviously is not about all people, and certainly not exclusively women, being expected or Biblically required to be virgins before marriage. So many other Biblical passages already make it very clear that there are illegitimate ways of losing one's virginity or intentions behind this, such as promiscuity, but simply not being a virgin is not sinful. Not getting married after premarital sex under certain conditions like abuse or parental objections, getting remarried after morally permissible divorce (Jesus touches on how illegitimate divorce followed by remarriage to a new person is adultery against one's former spouse in Matthew 19), having sex ith one's engagement partner before legal marriage, and being raped are all ways that someone could lose their virginity outside of a given marriage without sinning.
The Wording Of Mosaic Law And Gender
Does Deuteronomy 22:13-21 teach that only women are to not lie about their virginity or be killed for such a thing? Not any more than the rape law of Deuteronomy 22:25-27 says that only male rapists are to be executed, and even then only when they rape a separately engaged woman. Though the law features a female victim (engaged to be married) and a male aggressor, it says that rape is like murder. As I love to point out, murder is sinful for everyone (Exodus 20:13) and deserves death every time, no matter the gender of the victim or the rapist (Numbers 35:31). Mosaic Law does not ignore or deny male victims of sexual assault perpetrated by women or men. The same death penalty is by necessity deserved by all rapists and the same right to not be raped is possessed according to the teachings of the Bible by women and men, for the act is the same and women are not superior to men so that they have greater rights here. In this case, the wording of how rape is like murder already on its own establishes all of this without referencing back to how both genders bear God's image as full persons. Language for men and women does not at all by default convey that an obligation is exclusive to men or women, as if Genesis 1:26-27 would not already necessitate the opposite, except where the likes of literal anatomy is concerned, as with circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14, Leviticus 12:2-3) for men, as only men have a foreskin to remove, or women not having sex with anyone during menstruation (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18), a biological phenomenon men do not experience, despite how men are inversely forbidden from having sex with any woman on her period as well.
These have nothing to do with the rights and obligations of humans, which both men and women are. Some laws are stated in such a way that it should be obvious to anyone that they are not about gender, such as the commands to not commit murder (Exodus 20:13) or to not commit adultery (20:14). Some specify that of course they are applicable to women and men, such as the codified obligation to release one's servants if one abuses them through physical mutilation. Men and women are directly said to have a right to their release if they are mistreated in this way (Exodus 21:26-27). Men are not regarded through the misandrist concepts of males "deserving" greater physical harshness or as being apathetic to their suffering, and women are not regarded as deserving physical harshness due to some mythical lower metaphysical status of being female. Other laws that mention both men and women include the prescription of capital punishment for the worship of other deities besides Yahweh (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) along with the condemnation of shrine prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17) and prostitution in general (23:18).
In other cases, what might appear a sexist proclamation to irrationalists, like the command to execute sorceresses (Exodus 22:18), has at least two Biblical reasons why it is of course also applicable to the other gender. Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 make it clear that women and men are not more or less valuable, close to God, or in possession of moral rights or obligations having nothing to do with their actual anatomy and physiology. Also, elsewhere in Mosaic Law, one can find things that specify that these sins and punishments are gender neutral: Deuteronomy 18:9-12 says to kill all who practice sorcery or divination, which would include but not be limited to sorceresses. On a strictly logical level aside from the words of the text, sorcery is the sin in question, and there is nothing about being a man that makes it logically impossible to commit sorcery. As long as something good or evil can be done by men and women alike, that thing is morally mandatory, supererogatory, or wrong for both genders. For another example, see how Exodus 21:2-7 might seem to say that only male servants are to go free every seven years, since it says that a daughter sold as a servant is not to go free in the same way. However, the context is one of marriage to the master's son, who is not a servant (21:9-11). Aside from the real difference being that she is the master's child and the previously mentioned male servant is not, Deuteronomy 15:12-18 says to free male and female slaves of one's own countrypeople after six years of labor, no matter their outstanding debt. The awl-piercing to signify that a servant wishes to remain with their master/mistress for life, first referenced in Exodus 21:5-6 using male language, is, once again, of course to be used with female slaves who have the same desire.
Moreover, see how Numbers 30:1-16 might appear to say men and women have different levels of obligation with vows unless a woman is divorced or widowed. Nevertheless, Leviticus 5:4-5 addresses vows for everyone prior to this, and Deuteronomy 23:21-23 says afterward that anyone who makes a vow to God must keep it, though there is no sin in refraining from any such oath. Gender is not referenced! The situational case laws of Numbers 30 are really about how one's parent or spouse can nullify one's vows, depending on if one is living with one's parents while unmarried or living with one's spouse while married. The literal wording does not require a different moral doctrine, and a "complementarian" interpretation would in fact contradict Biblical tenets as early as Genesis 1:26-27. What of how Leviticus 6 uses words like "his" and "he" to refer to a person who steals from or deceives their neighbor needing to make restitution that includes an additional value of a fifth of the property taken (6:1-5)? Numbers 5:5-7 says any "man or woman" who does such things has this obligation to make restitution by repaying for whatever was stolen/lost, along with an additional penalty of one-fifth of the monetary value. This is not just about male offenders.
Just to touch on another example, Leviticus 14 says that a man, obviously a stand-in for person in light of logical necessities about equivalence and Biblical statements about gender equality, can be examined away from the camp by the priest to see if "he" can be allowed back after an infectious skin disease. This person is to remove their clothing, yet another indirect Biblical approval of nudity, and shave off all hair, including that of the beard (14:9). The priest is to inspect their whole outward body to ensure as much as the senses can that the disease is gone. Later, Numbers 5:1-4 says to send men and women outside of the camp in cases of certain skin conditions, so even on the level of direct phrasing, the Bible shows once again that it does directly affirm gender equality in these matters. Male or female language is not about just men or women when dealing with a matter that really relates to everyone, as if male language, like mankind, is not already sometimes used to intentionally refer to all people no matter their gender. Deuteronomy 13:8-10 uses male language in reference to people who were just said to be daughters, wives, or friends of either gender in verse 6, saying "he" tried to entice people to worship other deities and thus should be killed.
Right after mentioning male and female servants in the same verse, Deuteronomy 15:12 says to let "him" go free in the seventh year, giving yet another example of how the Bible, either left to itself or when translated certain ways, can use male language to speak of people it already said are women. The obligations are the fucking same in spite of the great delusion of some Christians and non-Christians with this aspect of Biblical interpretation, unless anatomy itself is actually relevant, as already stated. Of course women and men can deserve up to 40 lashes, not just men (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), for it is not justice for their legal penalties to be worse than women's (Genesis 5:1-2)! Of course a prophetess who gives false prophecies on God's behalf is also to die just like a male prophet who does the same (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)! Of course a poor woman who offers her cloak as a pledge is to have her cloak returned by sunset just as with a man, for she too could have no other covering for her naked body during the cold of night (Exodus 22:26-27)! Of course women can murder, would deserve the same penalty for murder as men, and could be victims of murder (Deuteronomy 19:11-13)! These are human rights and human obligations the Bible talks of.
Conclusion Of Part Two
More examples could be given, such as how it does not follow from Exodus 21:9-11 speaking of wives having "marital rights" their husbands should fulfill that husbands do not have the same, which Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7:3 as being possessed by husbands and wives, not just wives. Biblical adultery is not a man of any marital status having sex with a woman married to another man, which would allow for married men having multiple wives or having extramarital sex that is not adulterous on some occasions, as some think the Bible actually teaches. Adultery is a married man or woman having sex with anyone they are not married to, as I have tackled before, and as is the focus of an upcoming post in the near future that was already scheduled out anyway. Yes, "Frodo," since this very post you might be reading was not among my scheduled releases, I have adjusted my schedule for you yet again since you are clearly too pathetic to realize almost any of the things mentioned in part one or two, unless you improbably saw the light of reason since the last time I interacted with you! Now, the cloth part of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 would be related to gender, but it does not follow that men who lie about their virginity are not to be likewise executed or that a broken hymen is to be treated as confirmation that a woman is not a virgin. For these and other aspects or ramifications of Deuteronomy 22:13-21, there will be a part three.
No comments:
Post a Comment