You actually defeated yourself. I personally won’t begin to miss, in an SDA Forum, people who can’t back up what they are saying with sound Biblical exegetical Truth. To think that you actually think that I begin to take any blame for any of your actions and decisions is, summarily said, laughable.

That is the easy thing to do. However for the sake of those who may think that what these false teachers are saying is true, especially in such publically accessible settings, I personally choose to engage them and make them prove that what they are claiming as truth is Biblical.

For people who claim to care so much about their Church, I don’t see much backing up of these claims in concrete actions. Talk about ‘False Shepherds who are only looking out for themselves’ (cf. Isa 56:10-12).

Thank you for the great advice and awesome quote. As soon as NJK is banned from these forums things should return to normal. This is the worst infiltration we've encountered.

Read the Forum Rules Mountain Man and you’ll find the steps to take to get that done.... but of course there, you’ll also have to prove/justify your request with factually valid points.

The debt released on the sabbatical year of the land in Deut 15:1 is only a temporary release which gives the slaves time with their family and a rest for their own soul. Just as we all do every 7th day. On the 8th year they resume their work to their creditor until it is fully paid or until the Jubilee. Whatever comes first.


Is it written in Josephus document that they gave the land a rest every 7 years, temporarily release their slaves debts for the sabbatical year, and release their entire debt on the Jubilee? If so, I would like to see a reference of this. My hunch it is not there for following God to this level requires great spiritual maturity which I don’t believe they have acquired it nor come close to it. I do believe that they did reform to some extend after their captivity experience; however, I’m sure it was a partial and an “outside” reformation with a strong legalistic flavor.


Deut 15:1 does not address this situation at all. It all depends on how much this young man has to pay up after selling everything he owns to pay partially or wholly. He may have the funds if he comes from a rich family and might escape slavery. Also according to the law of redemption, it allows a close kinship (Ga’al = a redeemer) to pay it up for him.



According to your understanding, I disagree that Ex 22 penalty is less than Deut 22. Let’s do a comparison:

Ex 22 : Sex between Friends without following the laws of betrowal

-Large Dowry Sum : This Young man has to pay the dowry of virgin which will be a maximum sum in his case, plus potentially doubled it for he has stolen this maiden’s virginity. This young man will have no bargaining power for he is in the fault by breaking the bethrowal law, dishonoring the family, dishonoring the law of the land, and bringing shame to this young girl for life.
-May not have the girl as a wife: The law states that the Father may refuse to give his daughter as a bride. It is always the decision of the Father to give the hand of his daughter to whom he deem worthy of her hand. That’s why there is a law of bethrowal in the land. This law requires the young man to come to the father of the maiden and ask for her and bargain a dowry price. This has to be done before courtship.

Deut 22 : Forced Sex between Strangers

-50 Shekels of Silver :This sum could be less than most dowry bartering. I don’t know how much is 50 shekels is terms of relevancy in their time. Do you know how many years of average labor does this represents?
-No Dowry to pay: This dishonor the brides and does not bring justice to the fact that the betroth law was broken.
-Has the girl as a wife:The law does state that he cannot put her away.

Conclusion : This comparison shows that the Forced sex infraction has less of retribution than the consented sex between “friends”. It is because we are not taking account that the man that committed the crime of Deut 22 has also broken the law of betrothment that Ex 22 address. Only by taken into account all broken laws with the Deut 22 crime, can true justice be served and will bring Deut 22 retribution greater than Ex 22.


I’m sure you are agreeing that first; the people had to try to settle the injustice between themselves by applying the law of the land. Then if they couldn’t resolve the matter, then they needed to proceed accordingly to a minimal to what is defined in their time and society. I disagree that it was first to go to the Supreme Court. We don’t even do that today. Before hand, there’s smaller court proceedings that has to be first.

The proper procedure to proceed depended on the time of the infraction -- before or after Israel had a King. Before Kings ruled over Israel, in Ex 18:25 Moses had set up a hierarchy of heads over the people to settle matters before to come to Moses or Aaron to judge the people. There were men set up over 10s, 50s, 100s, and 1000s people. The Supreme Court (to come to Moses or Aaron) was the last resort.

I don’t know if this hierarchy system was still in place after Kings were appointed over Israel. Probably not. And I haven’t studied if they were set up in some ways with smaller court room before coming to the king.

There is another level of settling matters which applied in both before and after kings it was via the Ga’al of the family. The Ga’al was the spiritual leader of the family which has two main function: (1) to insure justice was met for the victim (acted as an avenger of the blood) or (2) came to redeem a kinsman(acted as a redeemer). So in many situation, a case can be potentially be discuss and resolved between the Ga’al of both families, if the family had one representing them. The Ga’al was a type of lawyer just like Christ is for us.


I disagree. The Hebrew word employed here( taphas --to capture, seize) implies a forced relationship. If it was a consensus relationship like you and MM are suggesting here, then there was other word as employ in Ex 22(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.”).

The word “discovered” does not only implied that they were secretly concealing your propose flinging affair. It can also imply that this young man could of threatened this young maiden, or she might feel guilty for many reasons and by fear she was silence. As this is often the case with young girls today who are silence when men has improperly engaged in sexual affairs with them.


I disagree with you.
#1. You are disregarding and making null the Law of betrothment
# 2 You are disregarding and making null that man has a responsibility over woman. It is man that is placed above the woman in creation by the fact that man was first created and woman was taken out of man. According to 1 Co 11:3, the order of God has placed man in direct subjection to Christ. Woman is placed under man. Man has the charge to keep the law and to subdue all under him. Man has the responsibility to keep his family in order. And that’s why there is the law of betrothment in place in society like Israel and other societies still today. Before courting a woman, this young man has the obligation to see the Father of the damsel and tell him his intention. If he doesn’t do this, this young man is dishonoring everyone and it is a crime against everyone and he alone is responsible for this crime whether this young girl teased him before hand, or it was a act “between friends”, or it was an act of “passion”, or whatever. All reasons has no weight on putting the offense on the woman regardless if this maiden is a whore in heart or not.

Due to the fact. Elle, that this particular, and actually, side issue in this polygamy topic further is not a personally pressing issue for me to currently seek to accurately understand, I cannot engage in an in depth discussion on it. However I’ll state the following succinct answers to your responses:



I still need to see a Scriptural support for that. I personally do not see that any enslavement of Israelites in Israel can ever extend beyond 7 years and Deut 15 laws seem to wholly cover that topic.



From what I recall off the top of my head, you are quite correct here in saying that this post-captivity was merely for form and not out of deep Spiritual conviction. Indeed that hypocritical ‘outward show’ demeanor is what Jesus had to principally battle against by the 1st century A.D. I indeed do recall many instances in Josephus where Sabbatical years were mentioned, but as you say, the Socio-economic and Spiritual requirements in those laws were probably ignored.



Seems to me that any enslaving debt, as this imposed dowry debt was, could/should be forgiven by the Deut 15 laws. It also seems to me that the aiding, law of redemption provisions, were available to avoid two people truly in love from being able to marry.



It seems quite straightforward to me that if someone only wanted a fling, and had to even “convince” someone else to do so, then being forced to permanently marry that person alone was quite a punishment. Indeed, that punishment pointedly said that ‘that offender could not freely sleep around and furthermore could never lawfully, and thus at the penalty of death for “statutory adultery” ever have a marital relationship with anyone else. So that law alone really nailed in the bud a person casually sleeping with someone they don’t even like at all because if they were ever “discovered”, he would be stuck with that person forever. That then left pre-marital relationship amongst actual close friends and Exod 22 understandingly”, yet still justly and strictly, covered that potential sinning course.



Of course this was, more than likely always, at a “Supreme Court” level taking the position of Moses, but that is besides my point that the King was to mainly decision such cases and other non-cases judicious matters. I had to do an in depth study on this topic in the course of my work on the 70 Weeks as it explained how and why the pointed stipulation in Ezra 7:25, 26 did indeed cause Israel to regain its lost political power, even if they were still ultimately under the authority of the Persian Empire.



Didn’t the law of redemption have to (only) do with Levirate duties?? (e.g., Ruth 4:6, 7). If you don’t think/see so, state the reference where these laws as you are applying them in this situation are found in the Bible.



I won’t presently be exhaustively examining the exegetical details here, but the context seems to me to support that this was, at the very least, and non-physically convinced-to-go-along relation, indeed when jointly considered with a “discovering” needed to find it out. As laws today cover, this was also an ‘aiding and abetting crime after the fact’, and thus any claim of “rape” was automatically rendered unsupportable.

Give that the penalty for rape was death of the rapist, then that woman, threatened or not, had absolutely nothing to lose nor fear by denouncing this criminal and having him taken into custody. It was only expected and intuitive for her to seek to protect her honor at any cost and the law and judicial system was entirely in her favor, and if everything else failed there was always the Court of God Himself who could injunctively decide an unresolvable issue. So any covering up here was out of a preference to do so and was then only seen as a stemming from a consent .



Generally said, which to me manifestly can/should address this whole point, I rather see that the Man and Woman were originally on an equal status and it was only after Eve first and convinced Adam to sin (Gen 3:17a) that she was to be ‘ruled over by her husband’ (Gen 3:16b).

Wow! Isn’t it amazing that we do not even know the most important law of all laws which is the ultimate Sabbath of all Sabbaths. This Law is the basis of the plan of salvation. You will find the Law of Jubilee in the entire chapter in Lev 25. The basic is the following:

(1) Sin is the breaking of the Law. All sins/crime are reckoned as a debt. Mat 6:12
(2) A debt has to be paid to his victim = Restitution which hard cases are determine by a judge (Ex 22:1-22; Deut 17:8-13)
(3) If he doesn’t have the money to pay up, then he has to sell everything(possession and land) he owns until the sum is gatered. If he still doesn’t have enough funds, then he(& family) is sold to slavery to work off his debt. (Ex 22:3; Lev 25)
(4) The selling of the land is really only a lease according to the value of what it can produced yearly until the coming Jubilee. Lev 25:15,16,23 Lev 27:16
(5) A near kinsman has the right to buy off the debt at any time. Lev 25:24-28, 48-49, 50-52
(6) If he wasn’t redeemed, all debts are cancelled at the Jubilee, no matter how large the remaining of the debt is or if he incurred additional debts. Every man returns to their land and family at Jubilee(DOA of the 49th year). Lev 25:8-13,28,54
(7) The Jubilee is not a choice, it is an obligation that God has declared as LAW.



No! Deut 15 does not forgive the debt. God put the law of the rest of the land every 7 year for us, so we would take a sabbatical year from our work. This law includes the slaves, the servants, the sojourners -- everyone in the land. This is what Deut 15 is addressing… all debt are to be released for that year; however it is not erased. It is only erased at the Jubilee in Lev 25.

I’m not following you nor understanding what you are trying to say? Could you please re-word it.


These are pure unreasonable diversions to offset the real issue at hand. What’s the problem NJK? Why don’t you want to acknowledge the word taphas used in Deut 22? Why don’t you want to admit that there’s more than your suppose reason that this was kept “secret”? The facts that you cannot see these shows that you are not objectional and not seeking truth in this discussion.

First, what you said doesn’t stand for in those days, woman were highly subjected to their man and it was highly the norm. It was not like what we see today. So if there’s someone to “be stuck” with another and being oppress, it is moreso the woman who has to endure being coerce into sex and work for the rest of her life to a foolish man. The fact that this man used forced(taphas) to get what he wanted initially shows that he is not a meek or kind man. Plus, in was lawful for men in those days could have several woman which makes the situation less possible for one particular woman to have power over the man. If she was too obstinate then he doesn’t have to sleep with her again or probably rape her if oppression/force is a type of kick for him. The point is that he has more the ability to make her life quite miserable for according to the laws and the ways of the land -- (1)he is the head/master of the house, and (2)he can have more than one wife if he desires. For sure the woman can complain which he has to endure, but he has the assumed right to beat her and to punish her because he is in authority. Whereas the woman doesn’t and her say has no weight especially to a foolish oppressive man.

So please, address the situation according to what scripture says and address the question at hand when you said that Deut 22 penalty was greater than Ex 22 which it is not.


??? Where did you get that??? Are the Levites the nearest kinsman to all the Israelites? No they were not and they were not considered as such. There were many NEARER kins. Just as Boaz was a near kinsman, but there was another that was nearer than he. So the nearest kin had the first right to redeem Ruth.
Ruth 2: 12 “And now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I. 13 Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives.

Her closer relative didn’t want to redeem Ruth because he had to marry her according to the law of Deut 25 (see Josephus in Antiquities, V, ix, 4) and he had to produce an heir for Ruth’s deceased husband Mahlon. Basically, all of the property Elimelech and Naomi had, would of went to Ruth’s child according to the law in Deut 25:5-10. So without marying Ruth he would of gladly taken up the property of Elimelech which he had already claimed, however when Boaz challenged him that he had to take account of the whole law and not only partially, then there was no more real financial incentive for the closest relative to redeem Ruth and Naomi, if he had to marry her.

First in Ex 22:4 a man can redeem his own trepass by restoring double its value, and in Lev 27:13-33 a man can redeem his vow(his own person or property that he had sanctified(given) to the Lord) by paying the value of it plus 1/5. So trepasses, vows, or no heirs, or natural disasters like drought like the possible case of Naomi and Elimelech to have moved in foreign land, can make so that we loose our possession. The nearest kinsman has the right to these possession before anyone(Num 27:11). This is the law that Elimelech closest kin was taking into account, however, he didn’t want to honor the law in Deut 25.

The main laws directly referring to the nearest kinsman’s right of redemption is found in Lev 25:25-54 and in Num 5:8. This is the law that gaved the right to Jesus to redeem Israel (by being from the line of Judah) and the world(by being born as a man -- the second Adam).

I failed to correct your underlined assumed statement above in the previous post. If you read the discussion(page 7, 9,11-15, this point was clearly crossed examined and you are unbiblically in aggreement with MM which Green and I disagree in your interpretation. A man is put to death on the basis of committing adultery and not for commiting rape.

So you are basing your interpretation on a false assumption and that’s why you chooose to disregard explicit words like taphas describing the situation in Deut 22:28 and consider the sequential logic this law is presented so to support your unbiblical interpretation.

I know what you are saying above is what we have been taught in the church and is echoed in other denominations and the equality of man and woman is highly esteemed in the world. I do not agree with this stand for it is in contradiction with 1Co 11:3 and many other laws and principles depicted in scriptures. And it’s not because Eve fell that woman are in submission to man. Paul clearly explains that the order of God is establish due to the order of creation -- Man was created first and that Eve was taken out of man(v.12), and Eve was created for man and not vice versa(v.9). She is to be a help meet to man. So it has always been so and always will be for what God has establish is forever, for God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Your are not taken into account that the law of bethothment has been broken with the act of Deut 22. So like Boaz said to Ruth’s nearest Kinman, “Thou must not remember the laws by halves, but do everything according to them;…” Josephus Antiquities, V, ix, 4

Again due to the lack of time Elle, I have for this side issue, here are my succinctly answers to your above response post, (indeed not even addressing, as I should, your several, factually speaking, variously subjectively, even biasedly, baseless, hyperbolic points couchings). I may have missed several minor points.

As I see it:

-I am not exegetically seeing/applying Lev 25 as you, non possibly enough to me, spiritually to another law. In the Pentateuch God actually states a law and stipulation fully and does not depend on the spiritualization of one law to understand another one. So in the Law itself, “debt” was not ‘spiritually sin’ [contra. your Point (1) fundamental view basis here] and furthermore n Matt 6:2 Jesus was speaking figuratively/illustratively. Your other points could easily also be debunked even if as defaultly ‘thus non/no longer -applicable,’ but my time fails me.

-The Law stipulations in Exo 22:4 are distinctly for thefts not rape. You are unjustifiedly confusing the laws here.

-Deut 15:1, 2 is clear that the debt is fully remitted. The debts of the Jubilee are also not for incurred debts as in Deut 15, but for the distinctly poor (e.g., sudden death of physical provider in the family). As an illustration the 7 year cycle was the emergency Employment insurance provision for people who cold actually repay it by the end of that cycle. The Jubilee was the more involved Welfare provision when the economy of Israel was wholly set aright, debt or not debt. I.e, properties were returned and fairly reallocated.

-I was saying that the law of redemption in regards to marriage was to help people get married if money was an obstacle. The redemption of properties in the Jubilees seems quite distinct to me. Also marriage Levirate redemption does not apply to a sin penalty payment aiding. Indeed it is not even a “redemption”.

-I am actually straightly going by you provided definition for taphas in #134834 which I see with the example given by Mountain Man of potentially having a figurative/non literal force, thus a mental convincing to consent. The issue of being discovered is determinatively key to me.

-In a forced marriage, both parties are equally “penalized”. I didn’t actually mean it from the male perspective only, that is however from where the Bible is stating this law.

-If a woman with a 100% chance of conviction, especially for a quick reporting neither scream for, nor reports a rape after the fact, then the only judicially logical conclusion was that she somehow consented to it. And like I said, in case of a wrong decision for either party, there was always the possibility to appeal to God through the priest (cf. Num 5:11-31).

-“Levirate” does not refer to Levites but to “The biblical institution whereby a man must marry the widow of his childless brother in order to maintain the brother's line”

-Deut 22:25-27: ‘(Only) The rapist was to be put to death’.

-Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 11:3 does not negate what was supposed to be before sin and particularly how it came to occur.

-In Deut 22:28, 29, which is what is pointedly under discussion here, there is no “betrothment”. It is just an act of consensual non-marital sexual relation(s).