Thx for the good question MM. It got me into studying these texts a little closer and came to value much God's laws and would benefit our society today if practiced.

Many things will stop a guy to rape a woman. Here’s are what he will be facing according to the law.
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 : He still has to pay the bridal price, however he won’t have much bargaining power, and whatever the father say will go over his say. Basically, the father can lay on the young man the maximum bridal price.

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)

Here the law clearly state that this man has to pay the dowry price regardless if the father of the maiden accepts or refuse to give her hand in marriage in the case of enticing a maiden. If my understanding is correct, I believe 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.

Ex 22:16 address a case where there is some type of “consensus” between a man and a maiden, however, biblically it is define as an “enticement”. Whether there is an appropriate “consensus” or not on the part of the maiden, the young man acted improperly and unlawfully. Acting according to the law of God would require a bargaining with her father and then an engagement. He stole the virginity of this maiden in an improper fashion and the offence was against the family, the maiden, the society, and the law of God. God gave the situation in the hand of the father of the maiden to judge the best way to rectify this situation to restore honor to his family, to the church, to the Law of God and to the best interest of his daughter by weighing the matter of consensus vs. enticement. If he view this young man as a good potential son in law, the father will lay a good dowry price higher than enticipated which the young man can work it off by working for the family. In that fashion, the father will be able to train this young man to be a proper husband for his daughter.

3. Pay 50 shekels of silver :
Now in the law of Deut 22, here we deal with another layer which is not a case of “consensing / enticing” (pathah -- ”to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude.”), but dealing with a case of “ lay hold of her” (taphas – “to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably.”),


Deut 22:28 “ If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her ( taphas), 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.

Fifty shekels of silver is refered to Lev 27:3 as the estimated value of a vow for a male between 20 – 60 years old. I still don’t understand the meaning of this, but I believe Deut 22:28 is referring to this law. Also, 50 shekels is the value of an homer of barley seeds (Lev 27:16).

I believe the 50 shekels is an additional price to the bargain price of the dowry, for the dowry price is not a set price and can be more or less depending on what the father evaluate her price.

4. Possibly Working 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.”
I know this law is dealing with theft, however despite the case is not a literal theft of property, however it is a theft of a virginity and the honor of the family, and a theft of God’s honor which all have value and is measure as a sum of money.

In general and as a principle, all sins are measured as a debt and can be viewed as a theft which requires repayment.

Conclusion A man that thinks to rape a woman has to face the current laws establish in Israel. His maximum risk is ending up working no more than 49 years as a slave for the father of the maiden and not be guaranteed to have her as a bride.

Seems like the women who are raped get the raw end of the deal. Seems even stranger God would frame laws in such an unfair way. Also, do you know where in the Bible it deals with consensual, premarital sexual relations?

I don't view this as unfair at all, nor do I think she has a raw end of it and I do see the wisdom of the law and see that it protects in great extend the honor of the maiden, the family, and the society.

The penalty for raping a woman is so great that it would make a man think twice before doing it, contrary to today's penalty for the same act. Today guys goes to prison for a year or so for sexual assault and a little more for rape, versus in Israel then, the guy would be a slave for up to 49 years.

???? Well I have quoted it and have discussed it in my post above. Here's the section of it:

I wonder how many rape victims would agree? Also, which passage above do you feel addresses consensual sexual relations?

Bumping this one for a response.

I would appreciate an answer to the comment and question above.

I wonder, Mike...is it important that rape victims agree? Is it more important that they "agree" or that they properly "understand" the Bible's teaching?

Many people disagree with the Bible. Many throw it out because it goes against their own opinions. Should their agreement or disagreement affect our perceptions of it?

Regarding the "consensual" relations--we do not find much in the Bible about this. This word is frequently used in our modern judicial system--a system in which a "non-consensual" intercourse can be defined as "rape" even when it occurs between a husband and wife. In the Bible, there is nary a mention of "rape" (actually, the Bible's word here is "force") within a legal marriage. I'm not trying to say that we have our definitions today all mixed up, I'm just pointing out that there is a much different way of looking at things today.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I believe consensual, premarital relations is described and dealt with in Deut 22:28-29. The idea that it describes and deals with rape is unconscionable.

Much is a matter of definitions. In today's world, for example, even a "consenting" 14-year old (or perhaps any minor) will be counted "raped" if the "offender" were of the age of majority.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In particular, Deut 22:28-29 describes and deals with consensual, premarital sexual relations. According to this passage, this law, people who engage in consensual, premarital sexual relations are obligated to get married and to stay married.