Difference between revisions of "Translations:What was the purpose of the Numbers 5 dusty(or "bitter") water test?/12/es"

Latest revision as of 03:08, 1 December 2020

Information about message (contribute)

This message has no documentation. If you know where or how this message is used, you can help other translators by adding documentation to this message.

Message definition (What was the purpose of the Numbers 5 dusty(or "bitter") water test?)

It isn't obvious to me that a wife could be forced to make such an oath even under the Sinai Covenant. An oath such as this is a form of witness testimony, and in no other legal case can someone be required to testify against themselves. It seems to me that a wife had the option simply to refuse the husband's request. This refusal would not have any civil, legal implications, but it might have been used by the husband as sufficient justification (along with other circumstantial evidence which caused him to suspect the unfaithfulness in the first place) to give his wife a writ of divorcement (Deut. 24:1). Nothing could prevent the husband from doing this (unless he himself had committed a prior sin that prevented divorce: Deut. 22:14-19), and if the marriage covenant had actually been broken by an act of unfaithfulness by the wife, then the husband's act of "putting her away" would not be a sin on his part (Matt. 19:9).

It isn't obvious to me that a wife could be forced to make such an oath even under the Sinai Covenant. An oath such as this is a form of witness testimony, and in no other legal case can someone be required to testify against themselves. It seems to me that a wife had the option simply to refuse the husband's request. This refusal would not have any civil, legal implications, but it might have been used by the husband as sufficient justification (along with other circumstantial evidence which caused him to suspect the unfaithfulness in the first place) to give his wife a writ of divorcement (Deut. 24:1). Nothing could prevent the husband from doing this (unless he himself had committed a prior sin that prevented divorce: Deut. 22:14-19), and if the marriage covenant had actually been broken by an act of unfaithfulness by the wife, then the husband's act of "putting her away" would not be a sin on his part (Matt. 19:9).

TranslationNo es obvio para mí que una esposa pueda ser forzada a hacer tal juramento incluso bajo el Pacto del Sinaí. Un juramento como este es una forma de testimonio de los testigos, y en ningún otro caso legal se puede exigir a alguien que testifique contra sí mismo. Me parece que una esposa tiene la opción de simplemente rechazar la petición del marido. Esta negativa no tendría ninguna implicación civil ni jurídica, pero el marido podría haberla utilizado como justificación suficiente (junto con otras pruebas circunstanciales que le hicieron sospechar la infidelidad en primer lugar) para dar a su esposa una orden de divorcio (Deut. 24:1). Nada podía impedir que el marido hiciera esto (a menos que él mismo hubiera cometido un pecado previo que impidiera el divorcio: Deut. 22:14-19), y si el pacto matrimonial se hubiera roto realmente por un acto de infidelidad de la esposa, entonces el acto del marido de "apartarla" no sería un pecado de su parte (Mateo 19:9).

No es obvio para mí que una esposa pueda ser forzada a hacer tal juramento incluso bajo el Pacto del Sinaí. Un juramento como este es una forma de testimonio de los testigos, y en ningún otro caso legal se puede exigir a alguien que testifique contra sí mismo. Me parece que una esposa tiene la opción de simplemente rechazar la petición del marido. Esta negativa no tendría ninguna implicación civil ni jurídica, pero el marido podría haberla utilizado como justificación suficiente (junto con otras pruebas circunstanciales que le hicieron sospechar la infidelidad en primer lugar) para dar a su esposa una orden de divorcio (Deut. 24:1). Nada podía impedir que el marido hiciera esto (a menos que él mismo hubiera cometido un pecado previo que impidiera el divorcio: Deut. 22:14-19), y si el pacto matrimonial se hubiera roto realmente por un acto de infidelidad de la esposa, entonces el acto del marido de "apartarla" no sería un pecado de su parte (Mateo 19:9).