Help needed re the Levitical Law

July 17, 2009

What you need to remember is that while God did set this as the requirement for someone who raped or fornicated with a virgin in Israel, those laws do not apply in other nations, anymore than the law requiring a man to marry the wife of his dead brother apply. Those laws were in place in order to protect the birthright of an individual. It was not commanded because of moral reasons, but because it was necessary because of the way God divided the land between the various tribes. Some laws were in place because they were based on God's standard of morality, and others were in place for practical reasons. There is no reason for America to make rape of a virgin legal, or require someone to marry a woman he fornicated with. Even though there is no requirement to do this, I have often felt like that if someone were required to marry a woman he slept with, it would drastically reduce fornication. I would even support making it mandatory that a man marry a woman if he impregnated her.

July 17, 2009

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.

Glad to be of assistance.

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?

In verse 25 the word "tapas" is not used. It is the word "chazak" and it means to "overwhelm" in that particular context. It means to use such strength has necessary to force submission. That is why verse 25 refers to rape.

Tapas doesn't mean anything like that, really. It means to "capture" and the nuance used does not imply force. The fact that the man is not put to death is also an indicator that two different things are being addressed in vv. 25-27 and vv. 28-99. Verses 25-27 are talking about criminal rape which was ALWAYS punishible by death, and Verses. 28-29 are talking about consentual, pre-marital sex.

I hope that alleviates your confusion. I think I have given you enough to answer or refute the Skeptics you are encountering. If you need more, let me know.

methinkshe · July 18, 2009

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.
Glad to be of assistance.

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?

In verse 25 the word "tapas" is not used. It is the word "chazak" and it means to "overwhelm" in that particular context. It means to use such strength has necessary to force submission. That is why verse 25 refers to rape.

Tapas doesn't mean anything like that, really. It means to "capture" and the nuance used does not imply force. The fact that the man is not put to death is also an indicator that two different things are being addressed in vv. 25-27 and vv. 28-99. Verses 25-27 are talking about criminal rape which was ALWAYS punishible by death, and Verses. 28-29 are talking about consentual, pre-marital sex.

I hope that alleviates your confusion. I think I have given you enough to answer or refute the Skeptics you are encountering. If you need more, let me know.

Yes, that's really helpful.

Just one more thing - in an attempt to pre-empt what I am pretty sure will follow!

Why does verse 25 speak of "a betrothed damsel" and verse 28 speak of "a damsel that is a virign"?

Much is made of these differences by my atheist questioner, as though the different punishments have nothing whatsoever to do with rape v consensual relations/fornication and are only to do with whether the woman was betrothed or a virgin. It seems to me that there are more than the 2 stated outcomes here, (betrothed/rape, virgin/consensual) there also exists the unstated possibility of virgin/rape and betrothed/consensual for which one is required to deduce the correct punishment; which would be marriage for the latter (which was contracted anyway so didn't need to be stated) and death for the rapist for the former.

Is there anything that is apparent in the Hebrew construction specifically (or Hebrew construction in general) or that is not well transmitted in the KJV translation, that makes this obvious? For instance, are there any parallel crime/punishment verses that require similar deduction?

I hope you understand what I'm getting at, here! I don't think I've expressed it too well.

Thanks so much for your help - it is so appreciated.

Hunterpoet · July 18, 2009

I hope you don't mind me chiming in here, but I think the person asking you these questions is starting to look for fly poop in the pepper.

What difference whether the female is engaged or not, the precedence has been set and the scriptures clearly define rape verses consensual sex.

How many times and with how many variations will a situation need to be described to satisfy an answer for this person??

I tend to be less patient as most here on these boards having wasted much time with bar stool philosophers in my past.

I truly hope your discussion ends up glorifying God and that this person seeks the Lord for his or her own salvation.

methinkshe · July 18, 2009

I hope you don't mind me chiming in here, but I think the person asking you these questions is starting to look for fly poop in the pepper.

What difference whether the female is engaged or not, the precedence has been set and the scriptures clearly define rape verses consensual sex.

How many times and with how many variations will a situation need to be described to satisfy an answer for this person??

I tend to be less patient as most here on these boards having wasted much time with bar stool philosophers in my past.

I truly hope your discussion ends up glorifying God and that this person seeks the Lord for his or her own salvation.

Yes, I agree with all you say.

I am also aware of the injunction to always be prepared to give an account of one's faith.

However, once I have fulfilled that objective, then whether or not that account is accepted is not my problem.

I, too, hope that the discussion ends up glorifying God - which is why I am anxious to give a true answer and not just a hastily formed opinion.

July 18, 2009

Just one more thing - in an attempt to pre-empt what I am pretty sure will follow!

Why does verse 25 speak of "a betrothed damsel" and verse 28 speak of "a damsel that is a virign"?

Both are virgins. It is expected that a betrothed damsel will keep herself pure for the man she is betrothed to. Keep in mind also that "betrothed" is a much stronger term than our modern term "engaged." A bethrothal was a guarantee, where our engagement is not.

By simply referring to the other girl in v. 28 as "virgin," the Scripture is making the disctinction that she is a young virgin woman who is not spoken for.

Much is made of these differences by my atheist questioner, as though the different punishments have nothing whatsoever to do with rape v consensual relations/fornication and are only to do with whether the woman was betrothed or a virgin.

I see what you are saying. Permit me to explain something that will help you with your questioner. In OT law, commandments were seen a "behvioral paradigms." What I mean is that the Mosaic law does not cover EVERY possible sin, in EVERY possible scenario that could possibly arise. For example. The law might tell you what to do if your ox gores your neighbor's sheep. But it might not tell you what to do if your goat gores your neighbor's sheep. Well, they would simply apply the law about the ox to goat, and that would be that.

It is the same here. If man rapes a virigin who is unbetrothed, the same law which applies to the betrothed woman would be applied to the rape of unmarried girl. It would be death in either case.

It seems to me that there are more than the 2 stated outcomes here, (betrothed/rape, virgin/consensual) there also exists the unstated possibility of virgin/rape and betrothed/consensual for which one is required to deduce the correct punishment; which would be marriage for the latter (which was contracted anyway so didn't need to be stated) and death for the rapist for the former.

Well, if the betrothed woman had consentual sex with another man, they would stone her (Deut. 22:21) If she is caught in the act, she and the man are stoned as adulterers. (Deut. 22:23-24). As I stated above, rape was crime punishable by death regardless of whether the woman was betrothed or not.

So, in this case, your questioner is trying to manufacture a problem that does not exist.

Is there anything that is apparent in the Hebrew construction specifically (or Hebrew construction in general) or that is not well transmitted in the KJV translation, that makes this obvious? For instance, are there any parallel crime/punishment verses that require similar deduction?

I have not really searched that out before. I will need to look around a bit. But keep this in mind: Commandments were/are frames of reference. Jesus even taught this. Jesus said that if you lust after a woman you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. This is really foreign to our modern way thinking, but the commandment against adultery, was a commandment against ALL sexual impurity, not just "adultery." The commandment agaisnt graven images was also a commandments against ALL idolatrous images graven or not. The specific medium used to create the image was not important. So, there were no technicalities like there are in our modern legal system.

If you raped a woman, young or old, married or not, virgin or not, you were put to death.

I

hope you understand what I'm getting at, here! I don't think I've expressed it too well.

Thanks so much for your help - it is so appreciated.

Glad to help!

methinkshe · July 19, 2009

Just one more thing - in an attempt to pre-empt what I am pretty sure will follow!

Why does verse 25 speak of "a betrothed damsel" and verse 28 speak of "a damsel that is a virign"?

Both are virgins. It is expected that a betrothed damsel will keep herself pure for the man she is betrothed to. Keep in mind also that "betrothed" is a much stronger term than our modern term "engaged." A bethrothal was a guarantee, where our engagement is not.

By simply referring to the other girl in v. 28 as "virgin," the Scripture is making the disctinction that she is a young virgin woman who is not spoken for.

Much is made of these differences by my atheist questioner, as though the different punishments have nothing whatsoever to do with rape v consensual relations/fornication and are only to do with whether the woman was betrothed or a virgin.
I see what you are saying. Permit me to explain something that will help you with your questioner. In OT law, commandments were seen a "behvioral paradigms." What I mean is that the Mosaic law does not cover EVERY possible sin, in EVERY possible scenario that could possibly arise. For example. The law might tell you what to do if your ox gores your neighbor's sheep. But it might not tell you what to do if your goat gores your neighbor's sheep. Well, they would simply apply the law about the ox to goat, and that would be that.

It is the same here. If man rapes a virigin who is unbetrothed, the same law which applies to the betrothed woman would be applied to the rape of unmarried girl. It would be death in either case.

It seems to me that there are more than the 2 stated outcomes here, (betrothed/rape, virgin/consensual) there also exists the unstated possibility of virgin/rape and betrothed/consensual for which one is required to deduce the correct punishment; which would be marriage for the latter (which was contracted anyway so didn't need to be stated) and death for the rapist for the former.

Well, if the betrothed woman had consentual sex with another man, they would stone her (Deut. 22:21) If she is caught in the act, she and the man are stoned as adulterers. (Deut. 22:23-24). As I stated above, rape was crime punishable by death regardless of whether the woman was betrothed or not.

So, in this case, your questioner is trying to manufacture a problem that does not exist.

Is there anything that is apparent in the Hebrew construction specifically (or Hebrew construction in general) or that is not well transmitted in the KJV translation, that makes this obvious? For instance, are there any parallel crime/punishment verses that require similar deduction?
I have not really searched that out before. I will need to look around a bit. But keep this in mind: Commandments were/are frames of reference. Jesus even taught this. Jesus said that if you lust after a woman you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. This is really foreign to our modern way thinking, but the commandment against adultery, was a commandment against ALL sexual impurity, not just "adultery." The commandment agaisnt graven images was also a commandments against ALL idolatrous images graven or not. The specific medium used to create the image was not important. So, there were no technicalities like there are in our modern legal system.

If you raped a woman, young or old, married or not, virgin or not, you were put to death.

I
hope you understand what I'm getting at, here! I don't think I've expressed it too well.

Thanks so much for your help - it is so appreciated.
Glad to help!

This is all really helpful, Shiloh.

Thanks so much.

I don't mind whether or not my atheist questioner receives this explanation; all I mind is that I give the correct one. Thanks to your help I shall now be able to do that.

paul1149 · July 19, 2009

Shiloh, I found that very helpful. It constantly amazes me how many errors are in our translations. More and more I'm going to the original languages and coming to my own conclusions.

bb,

p.

July 19, 2009

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.
Glad to be of assistance.

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?

In verse 25 the word "tapas" is not used. It is the word "chazak" and it means to "overwhelm" in that particular context. It means to use such strength has necessary to force submission. That is why verse 25 refers to rape.

Tapas doesn't mean anything like that, really. It means to "capture" and the nuance used does not imply force. The fact that the man is not put to death is also an indicator that two different things are being addressed in vv. 25-27 and vv. 28-99. Verses 25-27 are talking about criminal rape which was ALWAYS punishible by death, and Verses. 28-29 are talking about consentual, pre-marital sex.

I hope that alleviates your confusion. I think I have given you enough to answer or refute the Skeptics you are encountering. If you need more, let me know.

Yes, that's really helpful.

Just one more thing - in an attempt to pre-empt what I am pretty sure will follow!

Why does verse 25 speak of "a betrothed damsel" and verse 28 speak of "a damsel that is a virign"?

Much is made of these differences by my atheist questioner, as though the different punishments have nothing whatsoever to do with rape v consensual relations/fornication and are only to do with whether the woman was betrothed or a virgin. It seems to me that there are more than the 2 stated outcomes here, (betrothed/rape, virgin/consensual) there also exists the unstated possibility of virgin/rape and betrothed/consensual for which one is required to deduce the correct punishment; which would be marriage for the latter (which was contracted anyway so didn't need to be stated) and death for the rapist for the former.

Is there anything that is apparent in the Hebrew construction specifically (or Hebrew construction in general) or that is not well transmitted in the KJV translation, that makes this obvious? For instance, are there any parallel crime/punishment verses that require similar deduction?

I hope you understand what I'm getting at, here! I don't think I've expressed it too well.

Thanks so much for your help - it is so appreciated.

This atheist friend of yours is correct about the difference between the woman who was betrothed and the one that was a virgin. There is no place in this passage that gives the death penalty to someone who rapes a single woman who is not engaged or married. While it has been stated by some that it does, I haven't seen any scripture to back that up. There is a death penalty imposed to someone who rapes a married or engaged woman, and there was a financial penalty to the one who rapes a single woman, to be paid to the girl's Father. In addition, the person had to marry the woman and could not put her away ever. This is plain to me.

I have also explained how there are certain laws in the OT that applied to Israel but don't in all societies. I would imagine that once you get through with this subject, your atheist friend will be wanting to know why slavery and polygamy were allowed in the law? To me, God doesn't need a defense. Just because your friend doesn't like the way the law of Moses was set up, doesn't make God any less God. It is almost as though they are saying that since God doesn't do things in the way they think he should, he can't be real. That is not much of an argument to me. The creator is who he is. He doesn't have to give an account to his creation. It comes across to me like your friend is more of a God hater than a true atheist.

July 19, 2009

Shiloh, I found that very helpful. It constantly amazes me how many errors are in our translations. More and more I'm going to the original languages and coming to my own conclusions.

bb,
p.

How can you be sure that the Hebrew and Greek copies you are reading from are anymore accurate than the English translations? Unless you have a copy of the original, I would suggest you are at no more advantage reading the Hebrew and Greek than someone is with a KJV Bible and an Abington-Strong's Concordance with Greek and Hebrew dictionary for a reference. It was translated from the Textus Receptus, which I believe was the original Word of God. Since you cannot find an original copy of the TR today, I don't believe you are at an advantage when it comes to accuracy reading Hebrew or Greek.