# Trials by Ordeal



## John Bunyan (Feb 22, 2012)

Share your opinions on them.


----------



## Frosty (Feb 22, 2012)

I prefer trial by jury. Trial by ordeal can subject an innocent person to near-tortuous experiences. It also seems to presume guilt rather than innocence. I believe they are, to an extent, an attempt to "manipulate" God into answering as to the person's innocence or guilt. The chance that one provides an inaccurate judgment seems to be relatively high compared with other means of determining guilt (not that I have evidence to back that up).

Now that I think about it, I'm sure it would make the justice system a lot more interesting.

Court TV's ratings would also go through the roof. Think a mix of Judge Judy and Fear Factor.


----------



## John Bunyan (Feb 22, 2012)

I've just found out that trials by ordeal have been, matter fact, quite accurate and effective between the IX and XIII centuries. So is not about it's usability today, but if it could be used in some situations/countries/ages. Also, theologically, is asking God to perform a miracle in behalf of someone acceptable? Isn't this the same as asking God to cure someone? Both actions are divine interventions.

This 30-paged paper discuss the effectiveness of trials by ordeal in communities where most persons believe in them: Ordeals - Peter Leeson

Given that info, I pose two questions: Is trial by ordeal a viable christian way of knowing if someone is guilty (after all, why can't we aks God to show us who's innocent by protecting them?)? Is trial by ordeal, practiced as Peter Leeson think it was in the Middle Ages, inherently immoral?

If we were to arrive in a isolated tribe where people believed that innocents wrongly accused could be discovered if, I don't know, their skin were to become purple when they touched water, could we trial them in such a way, to save someone we knew to be not guilty, for example?

Edit: I belive Numbers 5:11-31 might also have something to do with my question.


----------



## John Bunyan (Feb 23, 2012)

No one? This is, if there is any doubt, a serious question. Also, please read the article above posted to clear your minds from modern misconceptions and bigotry against medieval times. Lets talk only in theological and practical terms.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2012)

I met several fat, doughy-looking Wiccans in the US - I bet those witches floated (if their body-piercings didn't weigh them down).....


----------



## Rufus (Feb 23, 2012)

John Bunyan said:


> I've just found out that trials by ordeal have been, matter fact, quite accurate and effective between the IX and XIII centuries. So is not about it's usability today, but if it could be used in some situations/countries/ages. Also, theologically, is asking God to perform a miracle in behalf of someone acceptable? Isn't this the same as asking God to cure someone? Both actions are divine interventions.


Does Peter Leeson justify it because he believes people will confess if they are faced with an ordeal?
I understand were people and think it's more pious to leave it up to God to show who's innocent, and maybe I'm being of "little faith" (hope not), but that's like praying that God has the Red Sox beat the Yankees, doesn't mean he is going to do it. 
Also in the middle ages people were tortured to death, not fun. Getting a hot plowshare stuck in you, ow. 







I'll print and read the article over my school vacation.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 23, 2012)

*John*


> Edit: I belive Numbers 5:11-31 might also have something to do with my question.



It's different if the people in the society really believe in the god or God they are taking an oath by.

Also, in the case of the "bitter water of the curse" we have the promise of God to "get behind" this law because it has been given by Him.

In "Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction" by Raymond Westbrook and Bruce Wells (Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), a very useful, interesting and enlightening book on Mosaic judicial law in the light of that type of law in the Ancient Middle East, which is sadly marred by references to JEDP and other unbelieving scholarship, but in which the chaff can be easily distinguished from what is useful by a mature and judicious Reformed Christian, it says:



> Such was the fear of the oath's consequences - divine punishment realising the self-curses pronounced - that it was not infrequent for the defendant to refuse to swear or for the plaintiff to conced the case rather than let him swear, or indeed for the two parties to reach a compromise rather than proceed to the oath. (p46)



Presumably at times of apostasy in Israel, when the numbers of "the wicked" (as they're called in the Psalms) greatly outnumbered the "just" or "righteous", there would be many that did not fear taking an oath, or had little fear about it.

I don't think we've any basis for trial by ordeal in the New Testament, any more than seeking God's will by urim and thummim. These seem to be unique features of the Old Covenant.

I'll get round to reading your article.


----------



## John Bunyan (Feb 23, 2012)

That quote of yours just summarized the whole point of the article. Waiting for any other contributions.


----------

