Bilangan 5:11­–31 dapat menimbulkan kecurigaan tentang adanya praktik seksisme, penindasan atau pelecehan terhadap wanita. Hal ini bisa dimengerti jika Mishnah menjadi rujukan yang kemudian dijadikan tolok ukur untuk menafsir bagian Alkitab terkait. Dari penggambaran Mishnah Sotah, wanita yang tertuduh melakukan zina dipermalukan dan diperlakukan hampir sama seperti seorang pelacur. Artikel ini berusaha untuk menunjukkan perspektif yang lain dalam mengerti ritual Sotah dalam Bilangan 5:11–31. Dengan menggunakan metode kajian sosiologis, artikel ini akan mengidentifikasi masalah sosiologis yang dituduhkan terhadap teks Bilangan tersebut berdasarkan penjelasan traktat Sotah dalam Mishnah. Kemudian, posisi wanita dalam dunia Timur Dekat Kuno akan dijelaskan berdasarkan konteks budayanya. Akhirnya, dengan menim­bang inferioritas wanita dalam dunia Timur Dekat Kuno dan perbandingan antara ritual Sotah dalam Alkitab dengan ritual sejenis dan setempat, maka artikel ini berargumen bahwa teks Bilangan 5:11–31 dapat dilihat sebagai terobosan budaya dalam membela wanita yang secara budaya pada masa itu dianggap sebagai kaum yang inferior. Numbers 5:11–31 could be interpreted as a kind of sexism and repression to women. In the Mishnaic tradition, the passages indeed are being understood and developed in such manner. From tractate Sotah in Mishnah, the suspected adulterous wife indeed is ashamed and treated as a prostitute. This article seeks to present another perspective on the passage. This article uses the sociological study method to identify the sociological problems alleged against the passage based on the explanation of the Sotah tractate in the Mishnah. Afterward, the inferior position of women in the ancient Near East will be explained as a cultural context to understand the passage better. Finally, considering this cultural context and comparing the Sotah ritual with the common rituals in the ancient Near East, this article argues that Numbers 5:11–31 could be seen as a cultural breakthrough to protect women, which are considered marginalized.

Since the sixteenth-century Reformation, literal interpretation of the Bible has been deemed the best hermeneutical method to unearth the biblical writers’ original meaning. For the Reformers, allegorical interpretation was denigrated for reading an extraneous, or spiritual, meaning into any text. Although Augustine was among the first who champions a literal interpretation of the Scripture—as he outlined in his De doctrina christiana—until recent decades, Augustine is still being perceived as inconsistent in following his hermeneutical method as it is attested in his interpretation of the Good Samaritan. In his interpretation, Augustine seems to have allegorized the parable, thus his method was accused of being inconsistent. Is it really the case? This article attempts to contest such an accusation by showing that Augustine’s method of interpretation cannot simply be categorized as either entirely literal or allegorical. Augustine never professes as a literalist, an exegete who only applies what is now known as a historical-critical method. On the other hand, he did not recklessly legitimate the application of allegorical reading to any text. Taken as a whole, Augustine’s hermeneutics revolves around a complex dialectic of regula dilectionis (the rule of love) and regula fidei (the rule of faith) that allows both interpretations to be considered to be true.