Help needed re the Levitical Law

[methinkshe]

Could someone help?

I am speaking to someone about the intrinsic properties of God - just, holy, good, etc.

I have been posed this question.

Deut 22:28 outlines the punishment that God wants people to impose on rapists. That punishment is to marry the victim. This is not influenced by culture or any such rubbish. If you accept the bible as the word of God then you have to accept that God considers that punishment to be JUST. If you accept that God is the ultimate yardstick for justice then no other punishment can be more just! Deut is 22:28 is not a story of some particular incident of rape; it's GOD'S LAW! Do you support that as the most just possible punishment for rape?

These are the verses alluded to:

22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (22:28-29)

22:29 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.

I need help to give a correct response and not just an opinion. I personally believe that the culture(s) of the day is very relevant, in spite of what my questioner claims. I also know God is just. But I don't know how to explain why the punishment God set for raping a virgin is peculiar to that time and place and culture bearing in mind that God is unchanging and what was true yesterday is true today.

Many thanks.

[Guest shiloh357]

Well the first problem is that vv. 28-29 are not talking about rape. They are talking about consentual sex on the part of both.

The verses on rape are vv. 25-27 and rape was punishable by death for the rapist according to that passage.

So the person asking you this question didn't read Deuternomy 22 close enough.

[methinkshe]

Well the first problem is that vv. 28-29 are not talking about rape. They are talking about consentual sex on the part of both.

The verses on rape are vv. 25-27 and rape was punishable by death for the rapist according to that passage.

So the person asking you this question didn't read Deuternomy 22 close enough.

So "lay hold on her" doesn't mean rape, is that correct? Because I think this person has been using the following annotated Bible:

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

where a margin note pertaining to these verses says the following.

(22:28-29)

If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her.

Does that mean that there has been an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew translated as "lay hold on her"?

Many thanks.

[Guest shiloh357]

Well the first problem is that vv. 28-29 are not talking about rape. They are talking about consentual sex on the part of both.

The verses on rape are vv. 25-27 and rape was punishable by death for the rapist according to that passage.

So the person asking you this question didn't read Deuternomy 22 close enough.

So "lay hold on her" doesn't mean rape, is that correct? Because I think this person has been using the following annotated Bible:

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

where a margin note pertaining to these verses says the following.

(22:28-29)

If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her.

Does that mean that there has been an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew translated as "lay hold on her"?

Many thanks.

Yes, because if you read up in vv. 25-27 it says:

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

(Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

This passage clearly refers to rape as it was forced upon her against her will and the man is put to death.

The Skeptic's Bible is bogus. I read and speak Hebrew. "lay hold" is one word in Hebrew, the word "tapas." It, like most Hebrew words has various nuances depending on the context. It means "capture" and that is probably why they decided to put the word "rape" in there. However, tapas does not mean rape. What the Skeptic's Bible is doing is supplying its own meaning and reading its own bias into the text. It is NOT a translation, by the way. There are standards for makes something a translation. The Skeptics Bible is more like a paraphrase, than translation based on how they handle this passage.

More to the point, what this passage is saying is that if a man happens upon a virgin who is not betrothed and he takes her to have relations with her she does not resist but consents to his advance, he shall pay the betrothal price to the father and marry her.

[Hunterpoet]

Could someone help?

I am speaking to someone about the intrinsic properties of God - just, holy, good, etc.

I have been posed this question.

Deut 22:28 outlines the punishment that God wants people to impose on rapists. That punishment is to marry the victim. This is not influenced by culture or any such rubbish. If you accept the bible as the word of God then you have to accept that God considers that punishment to be JUST. If you accept that God is the ultimate yardstick for justice then no other punishment can be more just! Deut is 22:28 is not a story of some particular incident of rape; it's GOD'S LAW! Do you support that as the most just possible punishment for rape?

These are the verses alluded to:

22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (22:28-29)

22:29 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.

I need help to give a correct response and not just an opinion. I personally believe that the culture(s) of the day is very relevant, in spite of what my questioner claims. I also know God is just. But I don't know how to explain why the punishment God set for raping a virgin is peculiar to that time and place and culture bearing in mind that God is unchanging and what was true yesterday is true today.

Many thanks.

Deut. 22:25 describes taking a women by FORCE, and the penalty is DEATH for the man.

Laying hold does imply aggression, but I don't think it means a forcible( violent ) rape. I think it implies that the two were in each others company outside the normal standard for the time, meaning it wasn't arranged by the parents or with the parents blessing.

Again the verse uses language that implies aggression, but the penalty to be paid is not death, but payment of silver to the father and having to take and treat the women as a wife.

What I see here his a smooth talking man and a disobedient daughter. I can't think of a more fitting punishment. The man was trying to get something for free, so he has to pay the money, and then, well you wanted her and now you have her...for the rest of your life, and you better treat her nicely.

This is essentially the standard used for the old shotgun marriage routine. And here again I will point out that the total responsibility is put onto the man. Even if the sweet little gal had enticed him, it is of no consequence, because He" lay hold of her".

Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject.

[nebula]

Without going into details, there is an implication of providing the rulers with a means to sort out a case of rape versus a case of fornication.

With fornication, both are guilty of sexual sin.

With rape, only the rapist is guilty.

One thing to note, back then a raped woman was considered refuge. Although to our perspective it seems cruel to force a woman to marry a man who raped her, you need to understand that back then a raped woman was doomed to singlehood and desolation. For a woman to not become a mother was considered a curse. It's hard for us to imagine how such a rule could be a form of protection, but to them it was.

I know it's hard to understand, but different cultures view things through different eyes.

[Guest Butero]

I have a differen't take on this passage than what I have seen so far, so I am going to begin at Deuteronomy 22:22 and go through verse 29.

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

This verse is plain. People who commit adutery were to be put to death under the law of Moses.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city; and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

This verse is pretty plain as well. If an engaged woman has concentual sex with a man other than the person she is engaged to, they are to be treated like adulterers and put to death.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damesel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for was when a man riseth against his neighbor; and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

If an engaged woman is in the field, and a man comes upon her and rapes her, the man shall be put to death, but the woman shall not be put to death because she did nothing wrong.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damesl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbeled her, he may not put her away all his days.

This is not as plain as the verses before, because the question is over the words, "lay hold on." The word lay comes from the Hebrew word shakab, and can mean to lie down for rest, sexual connection, or even to ravish, which would be the same as rape. The word hold is from the Hebrew word taphas, which means to manipulate, seize, to capture, wield, overlay, catch, handle, lay or take hold on, surprise, take. I am going to give you my opinion of what I believe this is saying.

I believe this is talking about a man raping a virgin or simply laying with a virgin that is not engaged. The requirement to wed is the same either way. There is no question there is a requirement to marry if the sexual encounter was consentual. Exodus 22:16 says, "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Why would God require someone who forces a maid to have sex with him to marry her? I believe it had to do with the fact that it was difficult for a woman who was not a virgin to find a husband at that time. In addition to that, women relied heavily on a husband for their sustenance. There were not opportunities in the work place for women as there are today, so this requirement in the law was not a punishment as much as a way of ensuring that the woman who had been defiled was taken care of for the rest of her life. While I cannot rule out the slim possibility that this is not speaking of rape cases, I can rule out that the death penalty is required in this instance, because the only cases where the death penalty comes up are when adultery is involved, either with an engaged woman, or a married woman.

[methinkshe]

Well the first problem is that vv. 28-29 are not talking about rape. They are talking about consentual sex on the part of both.

The verses on rape are vv. 25-27 and rape was punishable by death for the rapist according to that passage.

So the person asking you this question didn't read Deuternomy 22 close enough.

So "lay hold on her" doesn't mean rape, is that correct? Because I think this person has been using the following annotated Bible:

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

where a margin note pertaining to these verses says the following.

(22:28-29)

If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her.

Does that mean that there has been an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew translated as "lay hold on her"?

Many thanks.

Yes, because if you read up in vv. 25-27 it says:

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

(Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

This passage clearly refers to rape as it was forced upon her against her will and the man is put to death.

The Skeptic's Bible is bogus. I read and speak Hebrew. "lay hold" is one word in Hebrew, the word "tapas." It, like most Hebrew words has various nuances depending on the context. It means "capture" and that is probably why they decided to put the word "rape" in there. However, tapas does not mean rape. What the Skeptic's Bible is doing is supplying its own meaning and reading its own bias into the text. It is NOT a translation, by the way. There are standards for makes something a translation. The Skeptics Bible is more like a paraphrase, than translation based on how they handle this passage.

More to the point, what this passage is saying is that if a man happens upon a virgin who is not betrothed and he takes her to have relations with her she does not resist but consents to his advance, he shall pay the betrothal price to the father and marry her.

Thank you so much for this, Shiloh. I was aware from having read (and been blessed by) many of your posts that you speak and read Hebrew and I was praying that you would be moved to respond to my plea for help.

I am so grateful that I now have a correct answer and that I did not offer a quickly formed opinion of my own that was falsely influenced by my questioner's wrong interpretation of "to lay hold."

Also, is the same Hebrew word "tapas" used in verse 25 when it DOES mean rape, but in a different context? Or is it a different word altogether? And if it IS the same word, what are the relevant contextual words that give the two uses of "tapas" different definitions?

I just need to make sure that I give a full and accurate answer.

Thanks so much for your help.

[methinkshe]

I have a differen't take on this passage than what I have seen so far, so I am going to begin at Deuteronomy 22:22 and go through verse 29.

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

This verse is plain. People who commit adutery were to be put to death under the law of Moses.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city; and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

This verse is pretty plain as well. If an engaged woman has concentual sex with a man other than the person she is engaged to, they are to be treated like adulterers and put to death.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damesel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for was when a man riseth against his neighbor; and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

If an engaged woman is in the field, and a man comes upon her and rapes her, the man shall be put to death, but the woman shall not be put to death because she did nothing wrong.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damesl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbeled her, he may not put her away all his days.

This is not as plain as the verses before, because the question is over the words, "lay hold on." The word lay comes from the Hebrew word shakab, and can mean to lie down for rest, sexual connection, or even to ravish, which would be the same as rape. The word hold is from the Hebrew word taphas, which means to manipulate, seize, to capture, wield, overlay, catch, handle, lay or take hold on, surprise, take. I am going to give you my opinion of what I believe this is saying.

I believe this is talking about a man raping a virgin or simply laying with a virgin that is not engaged. The requirement to wed is the same either way. There is no question there is a requirement to marry if the sexual encounter was consentual. Exodus 22:16 says, "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Why would God require someone who forces a maid to have sex with him to marry her? I believe it had to do with the fact that it was difficult for a woman who was not a virgin to find a husband at that time. In addition to that, women relied heavily on a husband for their sustenance. There were not opportunities in the work place for women as there are today, so this requirement in the law was not a punishment as much as a way of ensuring that the woman who had been defiled was taken care of for the rest of her life. While I cannot rule out the slim possibility that this is not speaking of rape cases, I can rule out that the death penalty is required in this instance, because the only cases where the death penalty comes up are when adultery is involved, either with an engaged woman, or a married woman.

Oh, dear, that's confused me all over again.

Help!

[methinkshe]

Without going into details, there is an implication of providing the rulers with a means to sort out a case of rape versus a case of fornication.

With fornication, both are guilty of sexual sin.

With rape, only the rapist is guilty.

One thing to note, back then a raped woman was considered refuge. Although to our perspective it seems cruel to force a woman to marry a man who raped her, you need to understand that back then a raped woman was doomed to singlehood and desolation. For a woman to not become a mother was considered a curse. It's hard for us to imagine how such a rule could be a form of protection, but to them it was.

I know it's hard to understand, but different cultures view things through different eyes.

Personally I don't have a problem - I know and believe God is absolute righteousness and absolutely just.

But atheists like to have a go at God's character and accuse God of being less than just.

The way that this particular atheist has phrased his accusation is to suggest that if God is unchanging and is infinitely just, then it must be that the best punishment for rape for all time and in all places is to force the rapist to marry the woman he raped - which doesn't fit well in today's culture.