yes you're right, - it does seem to invoke false dilemma. Maybe the "circumstantial evidence" that is left out in this text is the woman's emotional condition itself, who can say... but for me to interject that just shows it's a false dilemma again. So are you saying, Marvin, that to use this to impose a modern reality in a settlement dispute would also be wrong? Maybe you're right in that case. Never thought about that. Good point...Jackson should have picked up on that. Angus took a gamble to even bring up that scripture. But for Jackson, as Guardian of Doctrin, not to be able to make a defense before everyone who demands a reason for the hope in him is very telling also.
But also, we must remember that this law in Deut. does not stand on its own. The law applies to Israel at THAT time; ignoring pre law and post law fullfillment of Christ teachings. I think Romans 13 makes clear we are to obey the just laws imposed by a just governmental system. I believe all child abuse cases should be turned over to secular (and yes, "superior") authorities to be decided by professionals.
And when you mentioned Jackson not being able to ask Jesus, the scriptures that immediately popped into my mind were:
John 14:
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching.
25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.