Thanks, Carmen, for taking a hit for the team. Your scholarship enables you to defend the Bible and the God of the Bible in ways that most of us cannot. Thank you for making the costly decision to contend for Biblical Christianity in the public sphere.
Dear Dr. Imes, I’m so sorry for hearing that others don’t seem to appreciate how much efforts and sacrifices you bring to explaining Gods word in detail and with so much care! I have been introduced to your work through the Bible Project and appreciate your way of working through hard passages. It has helped me in my own study of scripture to be aware of my own assumptions and biases. I love these videos because this level of Bible study I’m unable to do on my own. Looking forward to the new book and the exodus commentary❤
Understanding an ancient document in its ancient context takes an open mind and a lot of research and work!!! You have done your due diligence and are the expert voice in these matters!!! Keep up the great work Dr. Carmen!!! God is using your work to bring many hearts closer to God and to help us understand God's heart and compassion and righteousness through your excellent work!!! Everyone needs to hear these teachings and Rabbis are no exception:)
Thank you for your zeal, earnestness, and discipline to stay true to the original language of the text and to persistently uncover the meaning of these passages. You have helped me better understand and appreciate the fullness of God’s council. Keep up the joyous work and we are linking arms with you through this dark spiritual onslaught! Onward and upward! Solo Deo Gloria!
Thanks again. Even the apostle Paul said "slaves obey your masters". It doesn't mean he is promoting slavery. Blinds will always be blind. Ignore them and serve Jesus and his Church. Shalom
Dr. Imes, you always do great work and it's obvious to see the Spirit working through you. The fact that your teachings stirred up some means that they are stuck in paradigms that are problematic. It should be all of our efforts to break those and open ourselves to finding native hermeneutics to the text and allow the wisdom literature to shape and reshape our world views.
I am always surprised at how fellow Christians can abuse their brothers when they disagree. Carmen, you are awesome. Ignore the haters and mud slingers and carry on.
Working through the biblical text with you these past few years as I teach Pentateuch has been a blessing. I’m the only OT prof at my school and you’ve stimulated my thinking countless times. Thank you
Love learning about all the background hebrew words, thank you for your work It's unfortunate to hear about people mud slinging 😮 Thank you for your perseverance
Hi Carmel Thank you for these videos ❤ You are doing a great job. God shall surely reward you 🙏🏾. Keep up the good work...Ephesians 2.10-11 Cheers Ma 😊
Dr. Imes I’m sorry that you have been attacked online. I enjoy your videos and they have created a desire to learn more about the Old Testament. Know that your scholarship and explanations are truly appreciated. May God continue to bless you and your work.
This was a good continued dive into the text and this topic. Every lesson provides me with deeper insight to biblical practices and gives me a better understanding of the context. Also…how is someone telling YOU that you need to read the Bible? A whole Bible scholar and professor that focuses on the Old Testament 😵💫 If no one else Dr. Imes, I have been blessed by your navigation through this text and by Torah Tuesdays as a whole!
Very well said! So many have a frame of reference they think or believe where it’s not actual! Where any number want their beliefs validated whether true or not. Which think of those who only see movies that support their notions. Or the Bible says all men are created equal, which is not from the Bible but U.S. Constitution!
Thanks for your comment! I think a case can be made that "all men are created equal" comes from the Bible's teaching that every human being is the image of God.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD There’s definitely reference to G-d in the founding documents, but as I’ve understood it, it is supposed to be in a court of law all are equal. Where Justice or truth prevails regardless of status, rich or poor, etc., which would be G-ds’ desire!
Yes, rabbinic tradition, as you know, devotes much space in the Mishnah and Talmud to understanding, interpreting, and applying these Torah instructions and prescriptions which are taken seriously and not dismissively.
Hi Carmen! Would a closer term to what is described be what Americans refer to as "indentured servitude"? "Slavery" certainly carries the highly negative connotation (and rightly so) of the injustice and mistreatment in historical American slavery.
A great scholarly effort Dr Imes. You have shed some light upon the text to lift it from seemingly "oppressive" parts. For myself, I don't think it's essential as I don't view the Torah as a moral system, (from an Anthropological perspective it's only oppressive from our ethnocentric viewpoint.. it's just an improvement on the surrounding socieities), as "Lost World of Torah by the Waltons argued". But there are many for whom it's a objection to accepting the message of the Bible so " softening" it in the way you have is great. *The latter touchstone passage (woman being let free) is used as grounds for divorce by some other scholars (eg. David Instone-Brewer). I wonder if that takes things way of context . But it's something heard repeated online and in books on marriage and divorce a lot. Perhaps you'd enjoy weighing in on it :-) I don't think viewers realize how difficult your task is. You really communicate very well I'm a fan.😢
Wow. I hadn't heard that passage used to justify divorce. I do think it supports a woman leaving an abusive or even neglectful marriage, but it doesn't support a man sending her away because he's bored with her.
It needs to be pointed out way back when it was an agrarian society where there wasn’t high profit margins. A different economic condition. Then industrialization didn’t come until relatively recently.
I appreciate this video and your point of view, Dr. Imes. Nevertheless, I disagree with several of the arguments you present. You argue that the Bible does not promote slavery because it advocates for the release of slaves after a few years. Leviticus 25 contradicts this; however, you counter by arguing that the Bible outlaws mistreatment. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that what constitutes “mistreatment” can vary depending on culture and historical period. The Bible instructs and encourages masters to beat their slaves (e.g., Proverbs 29, Ben Sirach 42) as a means of instilling corporal punishment and motivation. While the Bible does outlaw killing slaves or causing permanent injury, it’s important to recognize that nearly all slave societies had similar rules and regulations. Yet, you wouldn’t apply the same level of charity to those societies as you would to the Bible. The Bible allows an Israelite to permanently own a foreign slave, pass them on to their children, and beat them. Notably, the text specifies that an Israelite cannot rule harshly over another Israelite, implying that harsher treatment is permissible for foreign slaves. You appeal to Leviticus 25:35 to argue that the Bible promotes the good treatment of foreigners. However, this ignores much of the nuance in how the Bible conceptualizes foreigners. You are conflating the general treatment of foreigners with the treatment of foreigners who can be enslaved. Leviticus 25 outlines different scenarios for how foreigners can be treated. An Israelite is entitled to enslave them; however, if he chooses not to, the foreign tenant farmer can rent land and serve as a hired worker, potentially becoming wealthy and even taking a poor, indebted Israelite as a servant. Foreigners were not treated universally the same way, and their status varied, just as an Israelite’s status could vary. General statements about treating foreigners well need to be properly contextualized. Israelites were encouraged to allow their fields to be gleaned, but this was not seen as conflicting with the practice of sometimes enslaving foreigners when it was economically beneficial.
I appreciate your respectful dialogue and raising actual points from the biblical text instead of mudslinging. Thank you! I still think that you are conflating description and prescription to some degree. There is a difference between (1) how slaves are actually treated, and (2) how a nation's law regulates treatment. When most people hear about slavery, they immediately think of how slaves were actually treated, not whatever "ideal" standard (if any) was encoded in law. Therefore I am distinguishing between the practice of slavery in the antebellum south and the regulation of employment practices in biblical law. I don't see the biblical text distinguishing between foreigners who become permanently attached to an Israelite household and foreigners who do not (in terms of how they are to be treated).
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD Thank you for your kind feedback and response. The problem with the idea that the Bible only describes slavery rather than prescribes it is that the Bible very clearly provides instructions on how to treat slaves-including how to beat them. For example, Proverbs 29:19-21 explicitly instructs enslavers to beat their slaves, as mere words are not enough. This parallels Proverbs’ instruction for fathers to beat their children to instil discipline, reinforcing that corporal punishment is something the Bible endorses. I don’t see how anyone can read these verses and conclude that the Bible is not prescribing or endorsing a moral practice. If God is giving these instructions, how is he not endorsing them? What more evidence would you need? I understand the desire to separate the antebellum South from the Bible, but when examined closely, both systems significantly overlap (much to the chagrin of Christian theologians). In fact, Assyriologist Joshua Bowen, in his book on biblical slavery, demonstrates this in one of his chapters, showcasing how (for example) the Bible’s injunctions on slavery closely mirror Georgia’s case laws. Finally, regarding the treatment of foreigners, the Bible clearly lays out different ways to treat resident aliens. Leviticus 25 explicitly describes two different scenarios: verses 45-46 states that foreigners can be enslaved, whereas verses 47-54 describe what happens if a foreigner prospers as a tenant farmer when an Israelite chooses not to enslave them. Their treatment and status vary depending on the circumstances.
I thought this discussion was so important I extracted it from the transcript and post it here: I have noticed we have a failure of civil discourse around these issues. People feel very strongly about slavery in the Bible and so I want to just just say from the outset that I am making a good faith attempt to read the scriptures and to read with the grain of the scriptures and explain what I think is going on there. I've noticed in people's comments and responses to me three persistent hermeneutical problems: 1) The habit of reading individual verses or short passages in isolation from their literary context and so ignoring all the rest of the laws and taking these out by themselves. 2) Judging ancient practices by modern standards. There are going to be things in the Bible that do not sit well with us because our culture and our context are so different. I'm not saying that truth is relative. I'm not saying that slavery is okay but we have a tendency to read into or read against the text because of what we think ought to be the case. 3) Confusing description of ancient practices with prescription. Yes, there was slavery in the ancient world. Yes, we see evidence of slavery in Bible times on the pages of scripture. Did God promote or condone or encourage that slavery? No, he did not.
Saddened by "Christians" acting as though they have no King who commands them to "love their neighbor as themselves". Too many "Christians" think that being right is the sole ground for righteous indignation. Deeply grieving
David Instone-Brewer points out that these verses were used by the Jewish sages in the Mishnah to allow for divorce by a mistreated wife: they said the first 2 were material needs and the last one was emotional needs. Furthermore, their logic was if this was true for a slave wife, then it was also true for a free wife and if for a free wife, then it was true for a husband, but Karaite Jews do not follow this logic chain to the husband, just leaving it as wife. These verse are often missed in discussion of what does Scripture say about divorce with some claiming that abuse or neglect are not valid reasons found in Scripture for divorce, but here we can see that they are when understood in their ancient context.
“Liar”, they called you? I went back over that Short and then looked at the comments. Clearly one can disagree, or even be wrong, about a subject without attempting to deceive. The spirit behind those critical thoughts seems obvious. Need one say more?
Your treatment of female concubinage is also problematic. You glide entirely over the fact that what’s occurring here is rape. The women in these scenarios are not free to disagree, and so the bible creates legislative frameworks around which this abuse can happen. You do not acknowledge this. You correctly point out that women are to be economically provided for even if the man doesn’t find her pleasing, but this is hardly a “silver lining”. You ignore that the motivation behind this was because the woman had lost her virginity and, therefore, was seen as devalued or used property. Thus, a man was obligated to ensure she couldn’t become economically destitute. But this is a deeply patriarchal system where women are treated as property, and the Bible protection isn’t about protecting them against rape but mitigating the social stigma that comes from the loss of virginity. Women’s well-being is defined and conceptualised in patriarchal terms.
Yes, it was a deeply patriarchal system, which is why there is always an exchange of wealth to bond two families and ensure a safety net in case the marriage didn't work out. A woman is meant to be protected by her father when single or husband when married. There is no indication in this text that her marriage into the family constitutes rape. She retains the rights of a daughter and a wife. Yes, there is social stigma around the loss of virginity, and this is part of the system of protection.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD "A woman is meant to be protected by her father when single or husband when married. There is no indication in this text that her marriage into the family constitutes rape. " The issue I have with this defense is that it uncritically accepts and does not sufficiently examine the biases inherent in this situation within the text. For example, if a father wanted to sell his daughter into marriage for financial reasons and the daughter was not emotionally comfortable with it, she had no legal grounds to object. I feel you overlook this critical point when interpreting these texts. I am wondering if you acknowledge that in the bible a woman's consent was not the primary concern here, and her body was not considered to be her own. Yes, I don't dispute that there could be circumstances where, by chance, the daughter's and father's wishes aligned. However, very often, they would not-and we know this because patriarchal systems like these frequently involved unwilling women entering marital agreements for economic and political reasons. The text does not mention rape, but that is because the Bible's definition of rape is much narrower than our modern understanding. Would you acknowledge that many women in these scenarios would have been forced to engage in marital and sexual relations they did not desire because their fathers said so?
Thanks, Carmen, for taking a hit for the team. Your scholarship enables you to defend the Bible and the God of the Bible in ways that most of us cannot. Thank you for making the costly decision to contend for Biblical Christianity in the public sphere.
Thanks, Derek.
❤❤❤
Thank you so very much 😢
Blessings!
Great insights as usual ❤
Thanks, Chris. Blessings to you!
Congrats on the new book!
Thanks, friend!
Yes, those 3 persistent problems are so pervasive. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for watching and always commenting!
You show Solomon like wisdom and Job like patience. I will keep listening and learning from you. Thank you for your good work.
Thank you for your encouragement!
Dear Dr. Imes, I’m so sorry for hearing that others don’t seem to appreciate how much efforts and sacrifices you bring to explaining Gods word in detail and with so much care! I have been introduced to your work through the Bible Project and appreciate your way of working through hard passages. It has helped me in my own study of scripture to be aware of my own assumptions and biases. I love these videos because this level of Bible study I’m unable to do on my own. Looking forward to the new book and the exodus commentary❤
Thanks, Danique! Blessings!
Understanding an ancient document in its ancient context takes an open mind and a lot of research and work!!! You have done your due diligence and are the expert voice in these matters!!! Keep up the great work Dr. Carmen!!! God is using your work to bring many hearts closer to God and to help us understand God's heart and compassion and righteousness through your excellent work!!! Everyone needs to hear these teachings and Rabbis are no exception:)
Thanks, Jimmy!
You are my hero! Thanks for your endurance and teachings 😊
You're so kind, James!
Thank you for your zeal, earnestness, and discipline to stay true to the original language of the text and to persistently uncover the meaning of these passages. You have helped me better understand and appreciate the fullness of God’s council. Keep up the joyous work and we are linking arms with you through this dark spiritual onslaught! Onward and upward! Solo Deo Gloria!
Thanks for your encouragement!
So well explained
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you, Carmen. You are doing an excellent job, for which I am very grateful.
Thanks, Tony! I'm glad you're enjoying the series.
Thanks again. Even the apostle Paul said "slaves obey your masters". It doesn't mean he is promoting slavery. Blinds will always be blind. Ignore them and serve Jesus and his Church. Shalom
Right!! Exactly.
I wrote on this passage for Dr Doug Stuart. Was very helpful for understanding “slavery” and marriage.
Thanks for watching!
Dr. Imes, you always do great work and it's obvious to see the Spirit working through you. The fact that your teachings stirred up some means that they are stuck in paradigms that are problematic. It should be all of our efforts to break those and open ourselves to finding native hermeneutics to the text and allow the wisdom literature to shape and reshape our world views.
Thanks, Victor!
I am always surprised at how fellow Christians can abuse their brothers when they disagree. Carmen, you are awesome. Ignore the haters and mud slingers and carry on.
In this case, it was the atheists (mostly) who were upset.
Working through the biblical text with you these past few years as I teach Pentateuch has been a blessing. I’m the only OT prof at my school and you’ve stimulated my thinking countless times. Thank you
Delighted to hear that, Thomas!! Blessings on your teaching.
Good info!
Thanks, Pam!
Love learning about all the background hebrew words, thank you for your work
It's unfortunate to hear about people mud slinging 😮
Thank you for your perseverance
Thanks for watching! I'm glad you're enjoying the videos.
I just pre-ordered your new book. Yay!!
Excellent! I hope it's a blessing to you!
Hi Carmel
Thank you for these videos ❤
You are doing a great job. God shall surely reward you 🙏🏾.
Keep up the good work...Ephesians 2.10-11
Cheers Ma 😊
Thank you so much!
Dr. Imes I’m sorry that you have been attacked online. I enjoy your videos and they have created a desire to learn more about the Old Testament. Know that your scholarship and explanations are truly appreciated. May God continue to bless you and your work.
Thank you, Bob!
This was a good continued dive into the text and this topic. Every lesson provides me with deeper insight to biblical practices and gives me a better understanding of the context.
Also…how is someone telling YOU that you need to read the Bible? A whole Bible scholar and professor that focuses on the Old Testament 😵💫
If no one else Dr. Imes, I have been blessed by your navigation through this text and by Torah Tuesdays as a whole!
Thanks for your words of encouragement!
Very well said! So many have a frame of reference they think or believe where it’s not actual! Where any number want their beliefs validated whether true or not. Which think of those who only see movies that support their notions. Or the Bible says all men are created equal, which is not from the Bible but U.S. Constitution!
Thanks for your comment! I think a case can be made that "all men are created equal" comes from the Bible's teaching that every human being is the image of God.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD There’s definitely reference to G-d in the founding documents, but as I’ve understood it, it is supposed to be in a court of law all are equal. Where Justice or truth prevails regardless of status, rich or poor, etc., which would be G-ds’ desire!
Yes, rabbinic tradition, as you know, devotes much space in the Mishnah and Talmud to understanding, interpreting, and applying these Torah instructions and prescriptions which are taken seriously and not dismissively.
Indeed!
I’m preorder
Hurrah! I hope it's a blessing to you.
Hi Carmen! Would a closer term to what is described be what Americans refer to as "indentured servitude"? "Slavery" certainly carries the highly negative connotation (and rightly so) of the injustice and mistreatment in historical American slavery.
Yes, indentured servitude is a better term for it.
A great scholarly effort Dr Imes. You have shed some light upon the text to lift it from seemingly "oppressive" parts. For myself, I don't think it's essential as I don't view the Torah as a moral system, (from an Anthropological perspective it's only oppressive from our ethnocentric viewpoint.. it's just an improvement on the surrounding socieities), as "Lost World of Torah by the Waltons argued". But there are many for whom it's a objection to accepting the message of the Bible so
" softening" it in the way you have is great.
*The latter touchstone passage (woman being let free) is used as grounds for divorce by some other scholars (eg. David Instone-Brewer). I wonder if that takes things way of context . But it's something heard repeated online and in books on marriage and divorce a lot. Perhaps you'd enjoy weighing in on it :-)
I don't think viewers realize how difficult your task is. You really communicate very well I'm a fan.😢
Wow. I hadn't heard that passage used to justify divorce. I do think it supports a woman leaving an abusive or even neglectful marriage, but it doesn't support a man sending her away because he's bored with her.
Don't worry about barking dogs, they are capable of calling God a liar in order to defend their own ideologies.
Indeed. Thank you!
It needs to be pointed out way back when it was an agrarian society where there wasn’t high profit margins. A different economic condition. Then industrialization didn’t come until relatively recently.
Yes, that's definitely a factor!
Carmen so sorry, it's the culture of the day to viciously attack on these platforms. You are a courageous woman keep going.
Thank you, Sharon. Blessings to you!
I appreciate this video and your point of view, Dr. Imes. Nevertheless, I disagree with several of the arguments you present. You argue that the Bible does not promote slavery because it advocates for the release of slaves after a few years. Leviticus 25 contradicts this; however, you counter by arguing that the Bible outlaws mistreatment. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that what constitutes “mistreatment” can vary depending on culture and historical period.
The Bible instructs and encourages masters to beat their slaves (e.g., Proverbs 29, Ben Sirach 42) as a means of instilling corporal punishment and motivation. While the Bible does outlaw killing slaves or causing permanent injury, it’s important to recognize that nearly all slave societies had similar rules and regulations. Yet, you wouldn’t apply the same level of charity to those societies as you would to the Bible.
The Bible allows an Israelite to permanently own a foreign slave, pass them on to their children, and beat them. Notably, the text specifies that an Israelite cannot rule harshly over another Israelite, implying that harsher treatment is permissible for foreign slaves. You appeal to Leviticus 25:35 to argue that the Bible promotes the good treatment of foreigners. However, this ignores much of the nuance in how the Bible conceptualizes foreigners.
You are conflating the general treatment of foreigners with the treatment of foreigners who can be enslaved. Leviticus 25 outlines different scenarios for how foreigners can be treated. An Israelite is entitled to enslave them; however, if he chooses not to, the foreign tenant farmer can rent land and serve as a hired worker, potentially becoming wealthy and even taking a poor, indebted Israelite as a servant. Foreigners were not treated universally the same way, and their status varied, just as an Israelite’s status could vary. General statements about treating foreigners well need to be properly contextualized. Israelites were encouraged to allow their fields to be gleaned, but this was not seen as conflicting with the practice of sometimes enslaving foreigners when it was economically beneficial.
I appreciate your respectful dialogue and raising actual points from the biblical text instead of mudslinging. Thank you!
I still think that you are conflating description and prescription to some degree. There is a difference between (1) how slaves are actually treated, and (2) how a nation's law regulates treatment. When most people hear about slavery, they immediately think of how slaves were actually treated, not whatever "ideal" standard (if any) was encoded in law. Therefore I am distinguishing between the practice of slavery in the antebellum south and the regulation of employment practices in biblical law. I don't see the biblical text distinguishing between foreigners who become permanently attached to an Israelite household and foreigners who do not (in terms of how they are to be treated).
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD Thank you for your kind feedback and response.
The problem with the idea that the Bible only describes slavery rather than prescribes it is that the Bible very clearly provides instructions on how to treat slaves-including how to beat them. For example, Proverbs 29:19-21 explicitly instructs enslavers to beat their slaves, as mere words are not enough. This parallels Proverbs’ instruction for fathers to beat their children to instil discipline, reinforcing that corporal punishment is something the Bible endorses. I don’t see how anyone can read these verses and conclude that the Bible is not prescribing or endorsing a moral practice. If God is giving these instructions, how is he not endorsing them? What more evidence would you need?
I understand the desire to separate the antebellum South from the Bible, but when examined closely, both systems significantly overlap (much to the chagrin of Christian theologians). In fact, Assyriologist Joshua Bowen, in his book on biblical slavery, demonstrates this in one of his chapters, showcasing how (for example) the Bible’s injunctions on slavery closely mirror Georgia’s case laws.
Finally, regarding the treatment of foreigners, the Bible clearly lays out different ways to treat resident aliens. Leviticus 25 explicitly describes two different scenarios: verses 45-46 states that foreigners can be enslaved, whereas verses 47-54 describe what happens if a foreigner prospers as a tenant farmer when an Israelite chooses not to enslave them. Their treatment and status vary depending on the circumstances.
I thought this discussion was so important I extracted it from the transcript and post it here:
I have noticed we have a failure of civil discourse around these issues.
People feel very strongly about slavery in the Bible and so I want to
just just say from the outset that I am making a good faith attempt to read the
scriptures and to read with the grain of the scriptures and explain what I think
is going on there. I've noticed in people's comments and responses to me
three persistent hermeneutical problems:
1) The habit of reading individual verses or short passages in isolation from their literary context and so ignoring all the rest of the laws and taking these out by themselves.
2) Judging ancient practices by modern standards. There are going to be things
in the Bible that do not sit well with us because our culture and our context are
so different. I'm not saying that truth is relative. I'm not saying that slavery
is okay but we have a tendency to read into or read against the text
because of what we think ought to be the case.
3) Confusing description of ancient practices with prescription. Yes, there was slavery
in the ancient world. Yes, we see evidence of slavery in Bible times on the pages of scripture.
Did God promote or condone or encourage that slavery? No, he did not.
I really appreciate your discussion here and wanted to highlight it.
Thanks, Don!
Saddened by "Christians" acting as though they have no King who commands them to "love their neighbor as themselves". Too many "Christians" think that being right is the sole ground for righteous indignation. Deeply grieving
Most of those who attacked me are *not* Christians. It was the atheists who got mad this time.
David Instone-Brewer points out that these verses were used by the Jewish sages in the Mishnah to allow for divorce by a mistreated wife: they said the first 2 were material needs and the last one was emotional needs. Furthermore, their logic was if this was true for a slave wife, then it was also true for a free wife and if for a free wife, then it was true for a husband, but Karaite Jews do not follow this logic chain to the husband, just leaving it as wife. These verse are often missed in discussion of what does Scripture say about divorce with some claiming that abuse or neglect are not valid reasons found in Scripture for divorce, but here we can see that they are when understood in their ancient context.
So interesting! I can see the logic.
“Liar”, they called you? I went back over that Short and then looked at the comments. Clearly one can disagree, or even be wrong, about a subject without attempting to deceive. The spirit behind those critical thoughts seems obvious. Need one say more?
Exactly!
Your treatment of female concubinage is also problematic. You glide entirely over the fact that what’s occurring here is rape. The women in these scenarios are not free to disagree, and so the bible creates legislative frameworks around which this abuse can happen. You do not acknowledge this. You correctly point out that women are to be economically provided for even if the man doesn’t find her pleasing, but this is hardly a “silver lining”. You ignore that the motivation behind this was because the woman had lost her virginity and, therefore, was seen as devalued or used property. Thus, a man was obligated to ensure she couldn’t become economically destitute. But this is a deeply patriarchal system where women are treated as property, and the Bible protection isn’t about protecting them against rape but mitigating the social stigma that comes from the loss of virginity. Women’s well-being is defined and conceptualised in patriarchal terms.
Yes, it was a deeply patriarchal system, which is why there is always an exchange of wealth to bond two families and ensure a safety net in case the marriage didn't work out. A woman is meant to be protected by her father when single or husband when married. There is no indication in this text that her marriage into the family constitutes rape. She retains the rights of a daughter and a wife. Yes, there is social stigma around the loss of virginity, and this is part of the system of protection.
@@CarmenJoyImesPhD "A woman is meant to be protected by her father when single or husband when married. There is no indication in this text that her marriage into the family constitutes rape. "
The issue I have with this defense is that it uncritically accepts and does not sufficiently examine the biases inherent in this situation within the text.
For example, if a father wanted to sell his daughter into marriage for financial reasons and the daughter was not emotionally comfortable with it, she had no legal grounds to object. I feel you overlook this critical point when interpreting these texts. I am wondering if you acknowledge that in the bible a woman's consent was not the primary concern here, and her body was not considered to be her own. Yes, I don't dispute that there could be circumstances where, by chance, the daughter's and father's wishes aligned. However, very often, they would not-and we know this because patriarchal systems like these frequently involved unwilling women entering marital agreements for economic and political reasons.
The text does not mention rape, but that is because the Bible's definition of rape is much narrower than our modern understanding. Would you acknowledge that many women in these scenarios would have been forced to engage in marital and sexual relations they did not desire because their fathers said so?