Difference between revisions of "Opposition to ancient Near East custom"
(initial version) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
[[ Category:Exodus 21:14 ]] | [[ Category:Exodus 21:14 ]] | ||
| − | [[Category:Ancient Near East Legal Systems]] | + | [[Category:Ancient Near East Legal Systems|Category:Note]] |
| + | [[Category:Exodus 21:14|Category:Note]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Pages using DynamicPageList parser function|Category:Note]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Note]] | ||
Latest revision as of 00:03, 18 May 2021
Umberto Cassuto:
It was a widespread custom, both in Eastern and Western countries, and accepted also in Israelite usage (i Kings ii 28 ff.; see on this point above, p. 261), that whoever entered a sacred place was saved from all punishment, even if he had killed a person willfully. The Torah abolishes this practice in the case of deliberate murder; the sanctity of the temple cannot override the sanctity of human life.[1]
That puts this Exodus law in opposition to the "ordeal" (which was a commonly-used attempt to force judicial knowledge from God (or the gods)). The willful violation of a holy place would no longer signal anything about God's judicial assessment.
Just another example of how Biblical law opposed the law systems of the surrounding nations.
Subtopics:
- ↑ Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 270
