I'm sorry, guys, but there is no way Deut 22:28-29 is talking about rape. My Jesus would never condone a law that punishes rapists with marriage. It totally devalues the woman and mocks the institution of marriage.

??? It looks like you didn't read my reply MM. The guy that rapes does not get the girl unless the father allows it according to Ex 22 law. Whether the father allows him to marry or not, he still has to pay a large dowry sum plus the 50 shekels from the Deut 22 law. If he can't pay up, he has to sell himself to slavery to pay up the father and the woman's dowry.

A couple of comments here:

First of all where in the Bible, Elle, are you getting the punishment of ‘slavery for 50 years’ instead of 7 years, for being unable to pay 50 skekels?

Second, seems to me that is a heightening of force from the Exod 22:16 relation and the Deut 22:28 one. In fact Exod 22 may be referring to relations amongst known people, even friends (i.e., simply seduces this friend) vs. Deut 22's situation and its “finds” (vs. 23, 25,2 8) statement apparently applies to two total strangers. The question is however, how to prove that this was actually rape, because it really is one’s word against another. So I see that these Biblical laws are best understood and harmonized when it is seen that the distinctions of being ‘in the city’ (Deut 22:23ff) and ‘in the field’ (vs. 26ff) as well as the element of the girl screaming out or not, particularly if she is in hearing distance in the city actually recursively applies to the case of the unengaged young woman (a.k.a. virgin). But rather than repeat those stipulations, which are apparently to be understood, and restate the similar punishments for them, this new stipulation only goes further to deal with a completely different issue here, which is: what to do if that raped woman is not engaged, and, by all appearances, has consented to this (presumably, in a city) relation. The man would indeed have “statutorily” violated her, simply because she was not his wife, but God made it that they could not engage in such casual, premarital sex and, literally, get away with it. The phrase “if they are discovered”, indeed implies that this would have been a consensual act.

So to me, as with the law on striking a pregnant woman, prior laws on striking a man or a in Exod 21:12-24 still apply, (see this post (#131061) and othershowever an additional element in the law is made for the special circumstance of, ‘if the struck woman was also pregnant’. So the law in Deut 22 simply did not redundantly restated the, should be understood, stipulations for a forceful act vs. an apparently consensual one priorly mentioned in vs. 23-27.

My words was a maxmum of 49 years according to the law of Jubilee to pay up the sum of 50 shekels of silver + the dowry price. All debts are cancelled at the Jubilee. Well at least according to God’s law, the Israelites never observed it once, nor did they ever gaved rest to the land (and their slaves) every 7 years.

Where did you get the 7 years to pay up 50 shekels? ???Jacob??? If so, with Jacob it was not a 50 shekels price for the bride's dowry he was working for. It was a work agreement because the rich dowry of unknown amount for the bride was stolen before hand and he had nothing to offer. However Jacob had some barganing power for he was an experienced older worker which has more value than a young unexperienced man and he didn’t had sex with her prior like the young man who violated the laws in Ex 22 and Deut 22.



I agree that Ex22 is probably between friends describing the sexual approach of the young man as pathah (to be open) versus Deut 22 between strangers with the word taphas (to capture, seize). The law between the two friends in Ex 22 requires that the young man pay up the bridal price at minimum and not even be guaranteed to have the young lady as a bride. The father makes that decision.

Whereas in Deut 22 the penalty seems less with only 50 shekels of silver and this amount is not even for the bride's dowry. It specifically says in v.29 that it is to be for the father. I believe it could be the restitution value of the father’s name/honor damage for according to Lev 27:3 -- 50 skekels is the price of a man’s vow over 20 years old.

The laws are define seperatly. An act can violate several laws. So all the laws violated needs to be accounted for when it is time for judgment. In this situation of Deut 22 which Ex 22 Law is implied in this case, it only specifies the restitution for the father’s name, and defines that the young man has no choice in the matter of marrying or not this young girl. It is up to the father. Whereas in Ex 22, there's a possibility that the younr man may opt to not marry her for it only states the obligation to pay the dowry price in that law. Plus in Deut 22 adds that this young man don’t have the option to put her away all the days of his life.

Laws has it’s limitation of what it can describe. That’s why the people could come to the king and have a fair trials when the laws didn’t cover their specific case.



You read it again NJK, it first address(v.25-27) if the damsel is in the field and is bethrothed, then v. 28 address if that damsel is not bethrothed and uses specifically the word taphas -- to capture, seize. So because of the word taphas, it seems to be a continuance of v.25-27 by addressing the case in this situation if the damsel is not bethrothed.

That is again my question. Deut 15:1ff states that debts are to be cancelled at the upcoming 7th year period (i.e., not necessarily after 7 years, but e.g., if the debt was incurred in a 6th year of a sabbatical cycle, it was to be cancelled the next year). So where are you getting this law of ‘up to 49 years’. I only see “up to the 7th year”. Thus they were to be cancelled even long before the Jubilee year.




While that may seem likely, I do not see concrete proof of this in the Bible. As usual, notoriety is usually based on bad/controversial behavior and so we find most of those wayward times recorded in the Bile. However there are many years that are not so recorded and they may have included periods of strict obedient living, indeed long enough to have a perfectly observed Sabbatical Cycle of 7 years or even a Jubilee Cycle of 50 years. And that is even in part because, while Israel did never let their land keep its fallow Sabbath, which is tangibly why they were sent from it off to Babylon (2 Chr 36:20, 21), they may have been distinctly observing the “remissions of debts” aspect of the Law as they would have seen its concrete reason vs. the fallow land requirement which they had to trust God’s wisdom for. Also, as I understand it, the mention of a separate 49 years (7 weeks) in Dan 9:25, is to mark off the first Sabbatical cycle since the restoration (i.e., 457-408 B.C.) and it very well may have been that Israel, since the Sabbatical punishment of the Babylonian deportation was careful to observe the Sabbatical cycles. Their great care for this post-the Captivity is seen in the writings of Josephus which documentedly cover the 400-1 B.C. time period of Israel.

So your wholly dismissive conclusion does not seem to be factual to me.



Not at all. It indeed did not even remotely come to my mind. Deut 15:1ff law for the remission of debt was what I saw addressed this situation.



I see the “cases” for the laws of Ex 22 & Deut 22 to actually be distinct. Again the punishment was less strict for Exod 22 because, ironically enough it could have been a moment of passion among friends. (And not even the promiscuous equivalent of today’s “friends with benefits” mentality which does not actually necessitate this considered “passion” of the Exod 22 case. However in Deut 22, after stating the general case of what would be a demonstrated rape situation in vs. 23-28 of an engaged woman, which I see also then recursively applies to the rape of a non-engaged woman; the distinct case of a non-engaged woman who manifestly has consented to relation, by never reporting this and them being “discovered,” which could be long after the fact, (e.g., through a parent’s questioning based on various observations, then the penalty in Deut 22:28, 29 applies and the punishment for this demonstrated consensual act of pure lust between two probably strangers is to be, at least forced marriage. So God had a lower tolerance for acts of adultery that were not based on any “understandable” passion at all but mere base behavior.



That indeed was to be the function of the king, which as several texts in the Bible shows was first and foremost a Supreme Judge.



The distinction here and why “capture” has to be used is that this is neither an act of passion as in Exod 22, nor rape as in vs. 23-27. The “capturing” implies at least a non-planned relation, but one that was manifestly eventually consented with none the less and only brought to light when those two were “discovered”. And this “capturing” may have simply been a verbal convincing. The key word to me is that they were “discovered” and that is why they both are punished.

So I see the laws not imposing marriage for actual rape also applying to a non-engaged woman. Only where there is concealment of the act and it had to be “discovered” thus there really is no way of judicially telling what the actual circumstance was, that both parties are default held responsible for it.

Two different situations, two different laws. We can't throw them together and make one law.

On the contrary, Mike, it cheapens the institution of marriage, even mocks it, to allow a one-night "rapist" encounter and NOT be united for life.

I see God as enforcing this to elevate the significance of marriage, as well as the value of women.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, imagine for a moment the unthinkable - your 18 year old daughter is raped by a 54 year old man because he knows the law will force them to get married. Which is exactly what he wants because he is smitten with her and knows she'll never agree to marry him. He wins - but you and your daughter lose big time. But it doesn't end there. Every night he rapes her and there's nothing she or you can do about it because the law will not allow her to get a divorce.

Can you live with such a law? Or, would you work to repeal it?

PS - If you don't have a daughter this example will not mean as much to you. If so, perhaps you can supply her place with a female you love dearly. Maybe a sister or a girl friend?

Mike,

And pedophilia is not addressed in the Bible much either. There is simply a lot that the Bible never said. What should that mean?

You speak of "rape" within marriage--that is something the Bible does not address. There was no such thing, by definition, as rape within marriage until our courts system reluctantly began to allow for such definitions. Prior to that, the courts did not want to touch with a ten-foot pole the private relations between a man and his wife.

I see a strong opinion on your part that I don't see reflected in the Bible. You don't sound wrong, it's just that the Bible doesn't offer you much support.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Unless, of course, you are mistaken and Deut 22:28-29 is addressing consensual, premarital sexual relations. If you are willing to admit this possibility, it sounds like you would be more willing to agree Jesus would not make a law forcing rape victims to marry their rapists. Such a law would never be passed in the USA. And, I shudder to think of what non-Christians would think of Jesus if such a law really existed in the Bible.