Qual foi o objectivo do teste de água Números 5 empoeirado(ou "amargo")?
O juramento/sacrifício nº 5 "água empoeirada" é uma das boas leis de YHWH que é frequentemente deturpada. Permitiu misericordiosamente a uma esposa limpar o seu nome de acusações caluniosas. O marido (tal como consta na lei: Núm. 5:13) não tem testemunhas do alegado adultério. É provável que esteja a agir com base num rumor - o tipo de rumor que é fácil de começar, e devastador para a reputação de uma mulher, se acreditarem. A lei bíblica permitiu à mulher inocente refutar tal falsidade sem qualquer risco para si própria, e pelo custo de um pequeno sacrifício alimentar de cevada (Núm. 5:15). Este tipo de cerimónia pública não seria realizada de ânimo leve por um marido. Seria um grande risco para a sua reputação, se ele não estivesse bastante seguro da culpa dela.
The temple dust/ink/water concoction which the wife was required to drink would have been harmless, in itself. Ancient inks were typically made of lamp black (carbon) or iron oxide, and gum arabic. Basically harmless, in such small, dilute amounts.
This test, often called the "bitter water" test, has been compared to a trial by ordeal. It is the opposite of an ordeal, though, in the sense that the water mixed with dust was harmless in and of itself (and probably more healthy than the distilled, demineralized water which people drink on a regular basis nowadays), and required divine intervention to cause harm. Ordeals as used in man's law were typically actions that were harmful by nature (eg. drowning, fighting, touching boiling water), requiring divine intervention to guide the outcome or prevent the harm. Ordeals attempted to force God's hand in revealing a judicial outcome. In this sense, they are more akin to Gideon's use of the fleece (which is certainly not a pattern that we find encouraged in scripture).
We do find historical instances of Israelite kings seeking answers directly from YHWH, but this often seems to have been through the Urim and Thummim, which are scripturally obscure. There is also the case of the disciples casting lots for Judas' replacement (Acts 1:16-22). Again, the normativity of this method of decision-making is questionable. In any case, there was no legal issue (e.g. a person's life) at stake in the disciples' decision. Both of the candidates they were considering were fully-qualified and (from a human standpoint) equally good.
The fact that the dusty water test involves a food sacrifice might warn us to evaluate it as abolished with other Sinai sacrificial laws. Certainly, the involvement of an Aaronic priest and the sacrificial element do not seem to carry into the New Covenant. However, these features do not seem to be necessary to the ontology of this case.
What about the "dust of the temple"? Is there something special (holy, perhaps?) about the dust of the temple which makes the test especially effective? Possibly, but my intuition is that the dust was merely symbolic, and dependent upon a physical temple being present. For a people in which (nearly) every other part of their sacrificial system was tied to the temple/tabernacle, it would be surprising if we did not see this physical connection with the temple.
I submit that the general equity, "active ingredients" in the dusty water test are:
- the public, legal, self-maledictory oath of the wife (v. 22) -- inviting YHWH to act in judgment
- the willingness of YHWH to punish someone who sins in a high-handed way by making such a false oath
There is no reason to believe that #2 above is no longer true in the New Covenant age. So the two remaining questions are:
- Is a wife living in the New Covenant age allowed to make a legal oath/affirmation of her innocence?
- Can a wife be forced by her husband to make such an oath?
Again, I see no reason that we could deny #1 above. What about #2?
Não é óbvio para mim que uma esposa possa ser forçada a fazer tal juramento, mesmo ao abrigo do Pacto do Sinai. Um juramento como este é uma forma de testemunho de testemunha, e em nenhum outro caso legal pode ser exigido a alguém que testemunhe contra si próprio. Parece-me que uma esposa tinha a opção de simplesmente recusar o pedido do marido. Esta recusa não teria quaisquer implicações civis, legais, mas poderia ter sido utilizada pelo marido como justificação suficiente (juntamente com outras provas circunstanciais que o levaram a suspeitar da infidelidade em primeiro lugar) para dar à sua esposa um mandado de divórcio (Dt. 24:1). Nada poderia impedir o marido de o fazer (a menos que ele próprio tivesse cometido um pecado anterior que impedisse o divórcio: Dt 22,14-19), e se o pacto matrimonial tivesse sido realmente quebrado por um acto de infidelidade da esposa, então o acto do marido de "prendê-la" não seria um pecado da sua parte (Mat. 19,9).
