I dissagree. Ex 22:16 deals more with consensing sex by using the word pathah meaning "to be open", whereas Dt 22:28 deals with forced sex by using the word taphas meaning "to seize, capture...".

Taphas (H8610) does not always imply force. Sometimes it indicates the ability to do something skillfully. For example:

Gen 4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle (taphas, H8610) the harp and organ.

Jer 2:8 The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle (taphas, H8610) the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.

Jer 50:16 Cut off the sower from Babylon, and him that handleth (taphas, H8610) the sickle in the time of harvest: for fear of the oppressing sword they shall turn every one to his people, and they shall flee every one to his own land.

Yes and in those texts, taphas still doesn’t loose it’s meaning as “to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably.”.

We have the same expression in english in saying “he captured well the meaning of the law or he capture well the usage of the instrument”

… so context defines the application of the word. In Deut 22 it’s about a man that force a damsel, v25 in the case that she is betrothed, and v.28 in the case she is not betrothed.

Good points, both of you. I appreciate the use of scripture to define scripture. In this particular exchange, it appears to me that Elle has a stronger position. I am no Hebrew expert, however.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Again, the idea that Jesus requires rape victims by law to marry their rapist, with no hope of divorce, is absurd.

I'm not so sure. Certainly, it is counterintuitive. I will grant you that. But God does not always work the way that seems best to us.

The punishment may have been more for the man than the woman. Consider the difficulty the man would have who had raped the woman. While the difficulties would be numerous, a few thoughts here are quite pertinent.

First, the rapist would have to deal with the "baggage" that he himself had caused. His new wife would either punish him far more than about anything else could, or he would learn through great trials how to win her heart wholly--and this would be a miracle of forgiveness and God's grace. In other words, in a sense, this requirement of God's would cause the man to own up to his problems and deal with them.

Second, the rapist would have opportunity to tell others of the miserable consequences of acting as he had done. If the rapist were simply immediately stoned, as in the case of adultery, it would leave a humbled woman behind who was stigmatized and whose life was much in ruins already with very little chance of marriage. (Most men preferred virgins, and Levites were required to marry virgins.) To make it worse, she may be raising a little fatherless bastard, and with little or no support (child support?).

So, in a sense, God's requirement here is almost a "kiss-and-make-up" sort of command. It had the best possible chance of correcting the evil after the fact of about any conceivable scenario.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Perhaps. However, consider another scenario. The ugly, awkward, unpopular guy at school is smitten with the beautiful, graceful, popular girl. He knows he has no chance of winning her heart. But then he recalls Deut 22:28-29. To have her as his own he need only rape her and pay 50 shekels. Viola!

Certainly, some people have gone there. Most who have had no knowledge of Deuteronomy. Furthermore, they all quickly learn what a bitter cup it is.

Not a wise choice!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I might add here that I have seen almost this exact scenario played out in South-east Asia on the part of two young ladies who wanted an especially handsome man. In the case of one of them, her mother pushed her to do it, as she wanted the young gentleman as her son-in-law. In the other case, the young lady herself wanted to force the marriage, and thought by enticing her man and seducing him she would have a guaranteed life with him. (Generally speaking, Asian cultures are still fairly old-school in these things.)

Both "marriages" ended up with the ill-matched couple separating. Both young men involved had their careers sorely affected. The one young man was to be a pastor. Not anymore.

The Bible does not particularly specify the circumstances required. It merely requires that they marry. It does not say "if" the young man rapes the young lady, or "if" the young lady rapes/seduces the young man. It does not need to specify. With any potential motivation, the required justice of permanent marriage remains.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This man is not guaranteed to have the woman he has raped as a wife. He has to face the current laws establish in Israel which two main laws comes into effect -- #1 Ex 22 and #2 Deut 22 -- as pointed out in post #134834.

His maximum risk is ending up working for a maximum of 49 years as a slave for the father of the maiden and not be guaranteed to have her as a bride. This is a huge risk and something to think about before raping a girl.

LAW #1 : Ex 22:16 A man sleeps with a Maiden without pre-approval of the father and doesn't follow the customary bethrowal.

Ex 22:16 “And if a man entice ( pathah), a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her (4117 mahar literal translation read “ to pay bride price” ) “ to be his wife. 17. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry (4117 mahar literal translation “ “as bride price of” ) “ of virgins.” (KJV)

This Law says :

#1. Possibly NOT have Her as a Bride : The father of the maiden can refuse to give her as a bride.

#2. Pay the Bridal Price : This man has to pay the dowry price regardless if the father of the maiden accepts or refuse to give her hand in marriage. The bridal price is not a set price and it is a bargain between the young man and the father of the maiden. It can be a large or a little sum, or even a number of years of labor that both agree on. However he won’t have much bargaining power over her price, and whatever the father say will go over his say. Basically, the father can lay on the young man the maximum bridal price and has the right to double it as this man act is also considered a theft. This man has stolen the virginity of his daughter and has dishonored her. Also he has stolen the honor of the family. So these are considered as a theft. Under the law of theft the value stolen is doubled minimum and can be as a maximum 5 times the amount.

LAW #2 : Forced Sex in Deut 22:28

Deut 22:28 “ If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her ( taphas to capture, seize), and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

This Law says :
#3. Pay 50 shekels : which is an additional price to the price of the dowry.

#4. Never can he discard her as a wife : He has no choice to marry her nor can he ever discard her, if the father allows the marriage according to Law #1.

#5. Possibly work as a slave : If the dowry + the 50 shekels of silver is a sum he cannot pay, then he has to work as a slave according to the Law of repayment in Ex 22:3 “…He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”